Barry Haase (Kalgoorlie, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005, which represents the most significant reforms to the family law system in 30 years. I am proud to be part of a government which is taking such a strong stance on an issue as important as this—that is, the responsibilities that parents have for their children.

In my maiden speech to this House in 1998 I talked about the plight of non-custodial parents. At the time I said:

The Family Court and the controls placed by the Child Support Agency are creating a cohort of second-class citizens. As a result, many people are marginalised. The statistics in my electorate indicate that 3,800 non-custodial parents are affected—

and today that total number of men and women in the Kalgoorlie electorate who are in the clutches of the CSA has grown to 9,000—

but that is not the end of this issue. Many current partners of the non-custodial parents—and the children from the second family for which they are now responsible—are inextricably damned by decisions made by the Family Court. The act that encourages this unfair situation is the Family Law Act of 1975. In the last 23 years, the economic and parenting roles of men and women have irreversibly changed, to the point where this legislation no longer reflects the role models and aspirations of society. The Child Support Agency—supposedly the cheap, easy, flat formula method of child support which was meant to create a process to give satisfactory levels of child support—has created a rigidity that is leading to the destruction of non-custodial parents’ lives.

That was true then and it is sadly true to this day. It is now seven years since I made those comments, and many of the changes effected by this legislation are considered to be well overdue. I am conscious of the disappointment of many people that the introduction of these changes will not be effective immediately.

The government is trying not to force couples to stay together or lecture them or their families with this bill, but to help parents to move away from litigation and towards cooperation. This is not Big Brother in the living room. This is, however, bold reform that is vital to changing the culture of litigation. That is why the Australian government has committed $400 million to this project over the next four years. This bill amends the Family Law Act 1975 to implement a number of the recommendations of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs inquiry into child custody arrangements in the event of family separation and its report, Every picture tells a story. It has been a longstanding policy of this government to encourage people to take responsibility for resolving disputes in a non-adversarial manner.

The key changes in the shared parenting bill are: to introduce the new presumption of equal shared parental responsibility; to require parents to attend family dispute resolution and make a genuine effort to resolve their dispute before taking a parenting matter to court when there is no question of harm; to make it the right of the child to know their parents and be protected from harm; to amend the existing definition of ‘family violence’ to make clear that a fear or apprehension of violence must be reasonable; to strengthen the existing enforcement regime by giving the courts a wider range of powers; to require the court to consider whether a child spending equal time with both parents is reasonably practical and in the best interests of the child; to require the court to take into account parents who fail to fulfil their responsibilities; and to better recognise the interests of the child in spending time with grandparents and other relatives.

The presumption of this bill is that the parents have joint parental responsibility for the child. Joint parental responsibility means that decisions about major long-term issues such as education, health and religion will be made by both parents for the benefit of the child. The amendments in this schedule also clarify what joint parental responsibility means for parents when they are making agreements about parenting arrangements. These include time, communication, maintenance and decision making.

This provision does not mean that there will be a presumption that the child will spend equal time with each parent. The committee rejected the notion of fifty-fifty shared custody. The court must consider whether both parents wish to spend substantial time with the child, whether it is reasonably practical for the child to spend this time with their parents and whether it is in the best interests of the child. Where there is a contravention, the court will be required to consider the subsequent parenting plan when considering whether to vary the parenting order. The court will be given greater powers to impose various sanctions against parents who do not comply with agreements, such as compensation for reasonable expenses and costs.

The introduction of this family dispute resolution requirement will increase the demand for dispute resolution services. The government is rolling out family relationship centres and other services to meet this demand. The new family relationship centres will provide help and advice on relationship issues. I was very pleased to learn that one of these centres will be established in the Pilbara, in my electorate. A national toll-free telephone advice line and a website will operate for those not living near a centre. People who are able to reach agreement without assistance of course will not be required to use the dispute resolution services if they do not need them.

When a party is reluctant to participate effectively in family dispute resolution, the court will not allow a dispute to remain unresolved due to simple and deliberate humbug, and will have the power to order attendance. All children have the right to a meaningful relationship with both parents and to be protected from harm. Providing there is no question of harm, both parents should remain involved in caring for their children after separation. Unfortunately, many fathers in my electorate work ‘fly in, fly out’ from Perth and they need great flexibility after a marriage breakdown if they are to see their children. They are simply not home every second weekend. These amendments recognise that children need to be protected from physical and psychological harm which, unfortunately, is far too common. When a relationship breaks down it is often difficult to prevent emotions getting in the way of what should be the focus: the children. An estimated 200 children go through the Family Law Court every day—an unacceptably high number. No child should ever have to suffer such an experience, and parents should think more about the long-term effects of such exposure.

Fathers, who are usually the ones disenfranchised from their children, suffer from grief, resentment and great frustration. Many fathers are bitter about paying the living costs of their former partners but being prevented from being part of their children’s lives, and many find it too difficult to cope and take their own lives. According to the support group Dads in Distress, 77 fathers separate from their child’s mother every day. On average, at least one of these men suicides every day. The tragic loss of life aside, these suicides cost Australia $7.5 million per day—surely far too high a price to pay. More than one million children living in Australia have one parent living elsewhere. A report by the Australian Institute of Family Studies last year found that more than one-third of children from broken homes spend little or no time with their father, and 26 per cent saw one parent—usually their father—only once a year. That is a huge percentage of the population growing up without the important influence a father has, and also without knowing their paternal relatives.

The irresponsible men who neglect their responsibilities need to be held to account for their actions, but the current system penalises those trying to do the right thing as well. These fathers do not want to take highly paid jobs, as child support is taken as a percentage of their wages, so the economy is suffering. How often do we hear the story that people are leaving a job because they believe that the child support they are paying is being inappropriately spent? There are a number of amendments which provide for a greater role for grandparents and other relatives of a child, and recognise the importance of the relationships the child has with their wider family—in particular their grandparents. There are also provisions for the views of the child to be taken into account without them feeling as though they are actually making the decisions.

This bill is about making situations practical and manageable, and putting the onus back on parents for the wellbeing of their children. Parents do know what is best for their children, but, given that the future leaders of this great nation are the children of today, it is our responsibility to ensure that the emotion of partnership breakdown does not obscure that natural parenting ability. I commend this bill to the House.

See this speech in context