Joanna Gash (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Yes, but you always have to rubbish something. Divorce has been cited as one of the more significant life events that contribute to stress related injury. It is up there with the death of a loved one and other similar personal life tragedies. Its impact is not restricted to the two parties concerned. The parents at least may have the capacity to move on in most cases and to adjust. Their children, on the other hand, are not as fortunate. Nor are the grandparents, who suffer just as much and who are the forgotten ones in cases of divorced couples. Children in their formative years bear the scars for a lifetime. Without having the ability to adjust in a mature and responsible way, they often pass that legacy on to their own children. It is unrealistic to expect that the fallout from such an event can be contained and that all concerned can expect to behave with civility and be accepting of the consequences. Life is not like that, and the least able to weather the storm are the children.

Since being elected to represent the electorate of Gilmore, I have seen first-hand some of the worst of these consequences—the anger, the vindictiveness, the spite and the hatred that surrounds many of these cases. When the divorce comes through, that is often not the end but rather the beginning of a whole new dimension, particularly for the children. One parent virtually disappears out of their home, and the relationship they had with both parents is turned on its head. It is very much like a death, and children become swallowed up in the grieving process. Sadly, every now and then, as has been the case in Gilmore, one parent kills the family’s children and takes their own life to punish the surviving partner. Such are the extremes of emotion that cannot be confronted rationally as rationality flies out the window.

We as a government cannot prevent divorces. Neither can we protect children entirely from the consequences. But we can try to minimise the harm that is sure to flow from divorce. I am not an advocate of preserving an unhappy marriage, for that too brings with it numerous negative consequences. I would not want to see anyone chained to a relationship that causes only pain and grief. Being a divorcee myself, I experienced the grief and the feeling of pain for my children as they processed their reactions. They are still, after 30 years, coming to terms with it, as are their children—my grandchildren. So, yes, I certainly appreciate the situation.

A totally happily marriage for all time might be an illusory creature, and couples will experience friction in their relationship from time to time. Since the advent of the no fault family law legislation in 1975, it has been argued that divorce has been made so much easier to obtain and that the legislation gives people an easy option rather than making them work to repair the rift in their relationship. In fact, there have been some schools of thought proposing that we should be looking at reinstating fault based divorce proceedings. I am in two minds about that, but I suppose there is a cogent case for both approaches. I am more concerned with the victims, who would have no choice in the matter regardless of the approach, were parents to resign themselves to their differences and try to make it work.

This bill acknowledges that path and attempts to deal with it. Children have a remarkable resilience to such events and can, within the right environment, adjust rationally and reasonably over time. And that is the key: it being the right environment. Key research findings indicate that it is not so much the divorce that causes the problems so much as the almost inevitable conflict that comes with it. It is perhaps useful to reiterate a statement from the Department of Family and Community Services website addressed to this proposition. It says:

• There is a need for mechanisms for children to have a voice in relation to their experience of parental conflict, separation and divorce.
• High levels of marital conflict are linked to a whole range of adjustment problems in children, for example, depression and acting out behaviours ...
• Marital conflict is a better predictor of adjustment for children than divorce itself.
• The quality of the parenting is diminished in a high conflict relationship.
• Various aspects of a divorce increase adjustment problems – financial insecurity, lack of parenting, decline in standards of living.
• When fathers engage in active parenting there is better adjustment for children during divorce and separation (subject to issues of violence and abuse).
• Intervention at an earlier stage in the separation process is very beneficial – for example, divorce/parent education programs for helping parents to focus on children’s needs.
• Children can show remarkable resilience in adapting to changed households and new residential arrangements ...
• Children’s groups could be a useful means of children getting peer support.

So, the emphasis is on prevention, and the thread of this bill reflects those findings.

When the bill was promulgated, the Shared Parenting Council of Australia said:

Through its reform agenda and legislation introduced today, we have witnessed this Government do more to support the rights of children to the love and nurture of their parents than any other Australian Government in any other period in living memory. The legislation clearly protects children from violence and abuse with a range of new measures.

That is quite an endorsement from a group that knows what it is all about. Shared responsibility is the crux of responsible parenting. When you have brought a child into this world, they are the equal responsibility of the couple that created them. Divorce is not a vehicle for relieving one or both parents from that obligation. Unfortunately, not all parents are responsible, so it behoves the government to reinforce that obligation through law. That is why I was so pleased to be able to announce that a family relationship centre is to be built in Nowra where, hopefully, some of these issues can be resolved before they go to a court of law.

This legislation imposes responsibilities on both parents, married or otherwise, that really just reflect their moral obligations. It says that individuals need to take ownership of their responsibilities and the consequences of their actions. Until that child legally becomes an adult, both parents will continue to have a role to play and to share the burden of that role. It has been far too easy for one or the other to simply walk away. How many have rationalised their abrogation of that responsibility by saying, ‘Well, the kids are not with me, so why should I contribute if I do not get something out of it?’ That is just mercenary, and it is selfish. To them I say: why, then, should someone else pick up the tab for you? As a taxpayer, why should I have to subsidise your irresponsibility? Take ownership of the problem and, if you do not like the consequences, work like hell to make sure you do not have to suffer them. That is why I welcome these provisions compelling intending divorcees to seek counselling beforehand, to get unbiased information that possibly they may not have and to deal with their anger and frustration without inflicting the pain on innocent bystanders.

The provisions in this bill impose obligations to do certain things, including a presumption of shared responsibility, although there will be instances where that will not be realistic due to the personal failings of one or both of the parties. The court will be able to take this into consideration in the course of their deliberations. It will be a right of the child to know their parents and to be protected from harm. The provisions in this bill compel parents to make a genuine effort at prevention, to attempt to resolve their differences before opting for the courts as a first preference. We need to ensure that some responsible thought processes are undertaken rather than indulging in the luxury of selfish considerations.

Not all parents may have the intellectual or emotional capacity to consider such matters, so having a third party made available will go a long way in addressing some of the problems associated with immature personalities. This includes the ability to hand the care of the children over to the grandparents. I have seen numerous occasions of this situation, where the grandparent has had to take over the role of the parent of their children’s children. It is a sad manifestation of today’s society, but that is another issue again. There is no denying that the need for custodial grandparents could be largely avoided if the parents were more responsible.

The bill will enhance provisions to deal with people who continue to resist exercising their obligations. This is zeroing in on recalcitrants in the most effective means possible. I particularly welcome the provision which will stop the systemic abuse of AVOs, apprehended violence orders. I have seen so many innocent parents, usually the male, victimised by the other parent simply out of spite. They have been put in the position where they cannot afford legal advice and they simply have to cop it. This is manifestly unfair, as indeed are many provisions of the existing legislation.

It is time for a change, because the children have been treated like the common goods and chattels of the relationship. They are so much more than that and worthy of respect. This bill will not solve all the problems in modern-day relationships in our society, but it does go a long way in addressing some of the travesties that have been passed off as legislative resolutions. My colleague the member for Hume has been an ardent advocate of many who have felt the brunt of these failings. The no-fault legislation did not mean no responsibility, but it did contribute to the erosion of parental values—of that I have no doubt. I welcome this legislation because it will mean that I will see less and less of cases where despair is the currency of an individual’s life.

In closing, I do have one criticism, and that still has not been addressed but definitely needs to be. It is the question of access. It was always my understanding that if a court gives access to the non-custodial parent, usually the father, then it should be upheld.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Far too many cases have I seen where such rulings have been abused and ignored simply to punish the other partner. I have seen grown men cry because the mother has denied lawful access to the father for reasons that are no more than a form of retaliation and petty vindictiveness. Everyone deserves a happy life, and none of us was put on the face of this earth to be used as a pawn for another’s selfish intent.

Gilmore has over 8,000 recipients with the Child Support Agency. Whilst this bill does not address the latest announcements of proposed changes, I would like to place on record that these changes have been made with 10 years of my involvement in discussions over child support issues and family relationship issues. These changes are long overdue. I encourage anyone who is still not sure to either contact their local member or make sure that they contact the Child Support Agency.

See this speech in context