Alby Schultz (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005. First of all, I must thank the Attorney-General for his commitment in pursuing these reforms, which will most certainly be the most significant changes to our family law system in 30 years. They are startling facts that more than one million children in Australia have one parent living elsewhere and that one in four children from separated families see their non-resident parent only once a year or not at all. This is a situation which has developed in Australia over many years, unchecked by governments of the day. Family law is one of those difficult issues which has gone unaddressed for far too long—until the Howard government had the courage to tackle it head-on.

These reforms represent a generational change in family law and aim to bring about a cultural shift in how family separation is managed—away from litigation and towards cooperative parenting. These changes are about what is best for the children. From a local member’s perspective I can confidently say that these reforms will touch the lives of an enormous number of people in an intimate and personal way, unlike any other legislation to come before this House in the Howard government’s very successful 10 years. I applaud the Attorney and all of those people who have been involved in preparing this bill.

After the research and consultation I have conducted during the past two years or more into the issue of child support, I am completely aware of the public’s desire for family law changes. And I do not say that lightly, as I have somewhere in the vicinity of 3½ thousand detailed cases on the issue. These reforms are, let me reaffirm, long overdue. I will read from just a handful of the emails I have received during the past week from ordinary Australians who are desperately awaiting the outcome of these reforms. During the past 12 months I have received thousands just like them. I quote:

I am writing to you on behalf of my situation on being a single father. I am only 21 years of age and bare the beautiful gift of a child that I don’t get to see, for I am clouded by laws preventing me from having a 50/50 relationship with my child. Inside me I am tearing up as I love my child as much as anyone loves their own. I haven’t seen my child since Christmas, and I still have the gifts that are hers that I never could give her.

Another one says:

I have recently separated. My ex allows me to see my 15-month daughter every Wednesday and every second weekend. Four nights a fortnight. I’ve have gone from caring for my daughter every morning and night to this. I am not a baby sitter. I am a great father and I want to have as much time as I can with Maiah, while being fair to her mother. This is a cruel and outdated system from the dark ages. Men now are so hands on with raising their children there must be changes made to keep it fair.

This is another one:

I am writing to express my concern at the consistent ignorance of the rights of children to spend equal periods with both mothers and fathers. I am a happy single father and I have been locked out of my son’s life by his mother and the courts. It is my son who is suffering, not me or any one else.

And the letters go on. I think that is the basis of the benefits of these changes. It is about the children and the rights of children to have access to their parents.

I applaud the fact that these reforms insert a presumption of equal shared parental responsibility, although there are of course some parents who choose not to be involved in their children’s life. This fundamental change will ensure that parents who do wish to be involved can be involved right from the outset. Under the amendments the court must consider when making its determination whether a child spending equal time with both parents is practical and in the best interests of that child. If it is not appropriate the court must consider substantial and significant time, including being involved in the child’s day-to-day routine, not just weekends or holidays. However, there are still parents out there, most of them fathers, who believe that this change does not go far enough. They believe that there should be a rebuttal presumption of equal parenting time and that the court should be compelled to assign both parents equal time with their child. Unfortunately, this is not always possible for a number of reasons.

One element of the reforms which I am certain will provide a great deal of relief and assistance to parents is the strengthening of the existing enforcement regime. Under the changes the courts will have a wider range of powers to deal with people who breach contact orders. For example, they will be able to impose cost orders, make-up time or compensation for those who are found to be in breach of the court orders. I am really happy that that has been part of the bill because I brought to the attention of the Attorney-General a number of significant cases which illustrated the point that I made about the Family Court unfortunately not carrying out its powers when court orders were made for people to have access to their children. I will read three examples of what I am talking about that came from people to me. They were all headed ‘Dear Mr Schultz’ of course. The first one says:

I was very happy to read the recent statement you made in regard to standing up for fathers everywhere. I have been involved in a very bitter family law matter over access to my children for almost 4 years now. I have to again go to court next week to ask the court to issue a warrant for the arrest of my ex-wife because she has gone missing with my children (who I have not seen for 12 months now).

What is really unfair about the system is that I am not eligible for any legal aid assistance and have to try and take on the court system alone, and have to continue to pay $300 per fortnight in child support—and yet don’t even know where my children are.

It is such a pity that more of the elected people aren’t prepared to take a stand on this matter, which is something that can’t be swept under the carpet any longer.

The second person says:

I am a divorced father who has spent in excess of $17,000 with lawyers and family courts, and despite repeated contact orders, I have not seen my kids in over 3 years.

I was not aware how much discrimination fathers faced in this country, until I got divorced. The house went to my wife, while I was left with little over $10,000. (I had to borrow the rest from my family for legal expenses, and I did not qualify for legal aid.)

I gave my wife the house because I thought it was the noble thing to do, and yet after giving most all of the $500,000 house, I was hit with an incredible amount of child support.

I live in a one-bedroom unit, I have lost all my life savings, and I have to pay a gratuitous amount of child support every week, that does not reflect what it costs to raise a child.

It seems that in divorce, one party wins everything, and one party loses everything.

The worst thing about it is that I have been honourable in my dealings, to the point of being a fool. I live in poverty in the hope that my kids will benefit, and yet, somehow, I have also lost even my most basic right to see my kids.

Finally, I am going to read almost the full text of the email from the third person because it contains a pretty compelling story about why this system needed to be changed and why it is essential that this bill passes through this House. It says:

Dear Sir

I am very pleased to see a politician stand up for the disenfranchised dads of Australia.

I will not bore you with all of the details of my story of anti-male bias in the Family Court (FC) and the deplorable way my ex-wife treated me after we separated due to her verbally and physically abusive nature towards me. I will briefly say that when we separated she said that she would not stop me from seeing our son who was almost four years old at the time. However, as soon as she spoke to a lawyer she insisted on me agreeing to Property Settlement 80/20 in her favour. She also immediately stopped me from seeing or talking to our son despite having FC Orders to the contrary. I endured almost eight years of being allowed occasional Contact usually only when it suited her ... She would frequently deliberately commence an argument with me when I was politely attempting to pick up our son for Contact and then she would have an excuse to slam the door in my face OR she would not be at home at Contact pick up time.

I took her to FC a few times for Contravention of Court Ordered Contact, but on every occasion the Magistrate/Registrar told her she was ‘naughty’ and to not do it again. Next time I attempted Contact she laughed at me saying that she can do what she likes as the FC do not punish mothers.

My current situation is most rare (for a father) as I was awarded Final Sole Residence of our son in March 2002 with the mother only allowed once-monthly Supervised Contact supervised by a FC Counsellor. This came about after Family Services had removed him from his mother under a Child Protection Order in March 2001 wherein Family Services immediately placed him with me. The mother subsequently was diagnosed as having a psychosis with paranoid delusions. I will not bore you with the details but suffice to say that the Child Rep and Family Services both fully supported me all the way through to the Final Hearing. In July 2002, the mother abducted him from Supervised Contact and the A.F.P. found them in Northern Territory and have returned him to me. Upon being found, the mother made yet another false allegation of physical abuse alleging that my new wife and I had abused him daily. The mother has not been charged or punished in any way for the abduction as the FC Judge persuaded me not to in the interests of the child. I am sure that if the boot was on the other foot, I would have received a jail sentence or at least a substantial fine for that offence.

The main injustices that I am trying to point out are:

1.

That the FC do not punish Custodial Parents for non-compliance with Court Ordered Contact. A parent committing that offence for the first time should be given a very stern warning that any future non-compliance will be (not may be) punished by community service or a substantial fine (e.g. $1,000) and that should a further non-compliance occur the punishment will not (not may be) a reversal of Residence.

2.

That the FC do not punish mothers who make false allegations or get AVO’s raised against their ex-husbands. The vast majority of mothers do so to disenfranchise the father from the child in a vindictive act of hatred without any concern for the child.

I always paid the CSA payments in full when I was the payer and she would often spend the money on herself.

I will not go any further, because the rest of the email is about the Child Support Agency. That gives an indication of the types of case studies in the considerable database that I have compiled. I know a great many fathers will be relieved, although no doubt still sceptical until they see this particular part implemented—that is, the part where anybody who breaches contact orders will find themselves in a situation where the court will impose a penalty.

Fathers who have been the victims of frivolous and unsubstantiated claims of violence and abuse are also pleased that the court will be empowered to impose costs against those who make false allegations of violence or abuse. Having read that particular article, I do know there is considerable abuse out there, both of a physical and of a sexual nature, by some fathers of their children or their step-children—and I do not condone it and neither do decent, thinking people here. I am talking about the majority of fathers, who are good people trying to get access to their children. I can tell you, from my substantial dealings with fathers, second wives, sisters and mothers—and, indeed, former wives—that such vexatious claims are not uncommon. Indeed, that tactic is often used by angry partners to gain the upper hand in court proceedings. Take this father’s letter as an example:

I am writing this letter because my daughter needs your help. She is 3.9 years old. Her mother accused me of sexual and domestic violence ... and went to the police ... my daughter has not seen her father since then. Can you see how unfair our legal system is for my daughter? I can’t even imagine how she’s feeling.

Thank you for reading my letter and I really hope you can do something to change the situation so other boys and girls don’t have to suffer because of parents who are using the children for their own selfish reasons.

There is no doubt that, following relationship breakdowns, the delicate nature of family matters makes family law a complex and difficult issue. There is no doubt also that, given the serious deliberations associated with some of the issues I have raised, family law magistrates and judges have to take reasonable, calculated and thoughtful action. In many cases in the past, that action has not been taken. However, I am confident that this particular piece of legislation will address such matters.

As a government, we must support parents and encourage them to sit down and talk about their children’s needs and the family’s needs, before entering into the court system. For that reason, this legislation, I believe, is one of the better pieces of legislation to come through this parliament for quite some time. However, I stress that, if those discussions fail, it is the government’s responsibility to ensure that courts are able to make decisions based not on any particular gender bias issue but on the merits of each case, with a view to achieving an outcome that at the end of the day is in the best interests of the children. That is what we are talking about—those beautiful creatures that we need to nurture, protect and love all through their lives.

I am sure that no family law system will ever be perfect, as it is the nature of the beast, but I am confident that these reforms will provide relief and fairness for thousands of Australian children and their families. I thank the House for the opportunity to speak on this issue tonight. It is a very serious issue. It certainly is a very serious issue for all Australians, male and female. Nobody would argue the point that it is the child who needs to be looked after, just as nobody would argue the point that the child needs to have the love and nurturing of both parents so that they grow up in a well-balanced way that will serve them well as they go through life. I thank the chamber once again for allowing me this opportunity. I commend the bill not only to the House but also to my parliamentary colleagues on both sides of the parliament.

See this speech in context