Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Unlike those opposite, I rise to support the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011. This is an issue that involves all Australians and one that should be addressed well ahead of politics. Children are the future of this nation and they are our most vulnerable asset. I say that as a person who has three children and is now very proudly the grandfather of another five. Children deserve to have the opportunity to grow up in a happy and loving home. They deserve to be able to feel safe and it is unfathomable that there are children who do not enjoy these basic rights. Some are subject to abuse and very often witness a parent being the victim of violence. These acts are intolerable and it is the responsibility of government and of the whole community to intervene to protect those who are vulnerable. This is not the time to be considering legal loopholes, as the previous speaker was suggesting to us; this is the time to ensure that we put the rights of children first. This government is devoted to protecting and enforcing the rights of minors in a way that mirrors the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

In 2006 the government received a number of reports regarding the family law reforms. These included Evaluation of the 2006 family law reformsby the Australian Institute of Family Studies, Professor Richard Chisholm's Family courts violence review, and the Family Law Council's Improving responses to family violence in the family law system:an advice on the interaction of family violence and family law issues. Each of these reports examined how the current family law framework addressed family violence based issues. These reports indicated that the system that was currently in place needed to do more to protect the welfare of those who have experienced, or are at risk of experiencing, abuse and violence. The Australian Institute of Family Studies reported that two-thirds of separated mothers and half of separated fathers have experienced emotional or physical abuse by their partner. Given the fact that presently in this country there is one divorce for every three marriages, if you apply that statistic to this arrangement, this is of great concern. We are just talking about marriages and not about partnerships. This is a major issue for us when you consider that one in five separated parents have an ongoing contact with their ex-spouse and have indicated a number of safety concerns. In all that we have to put the issues to do with the child first. As the Family Law Council states, victims of family violence have a higher chance of being treated for psychiatric problems. The council reports that there is an increasing prevalence of attempted suicide, alcohol abuse and homelessness. The government believes that a child has the right to have access to a relationship with both parents. When parents can cooperate, particularly if they live close to each other, shared parenting responsibilities have been shown to be effective. I get to see that with my own family. Regrettably, my younger son's relationship terminated and his daughter, Kiarni, has been at the middle of all that. It is fortunate that both parents have been able to work something out constructively whereby my granddaughter does not miss out on the love and attention of both parents and, indeed, of the grandparents. This is a thing that we need to try to achieve. This is every child's right.

Health and welfare within the family unit is of the utmost importance and the safety of children is, in my opinion, paramount. With this in mind, this amendment will allow the family law system to appropriately respond when issues of child abuse or domestic violence arise. It will further strengthen the role of the Family Court. Specifically, the change will prioritise the safety of the child and strengthen the adviser obligations. In addition, it will allow the Family Court access to a greater range of evidence related to abuse and family violence. This part is critical: the additional evidence is to ensure that safe parenting arrangements are made and enforceable.

Commonwealth, state and territory child protection authorities will now play a greater role in the judicial process and they will actively participate in family law proceedings when requested. The bill will also change the definition of 'family violence' and 'abuse'. The purpose is simple: it is necessary to ensure that we capture the exact meaning of harmful behaviour. We need to guarantee there is no confusion about the behaviour that society says it will not tolerate. As recommended by the Australian and New South Wales law reform commissions, family violence definition encapsulates assault, sexual assault, stalking, emotional as well as psychological and economic abuse. Within that framework, abuse in relation to a child now extends to include severe psychological harm that results from exposure to violence and neglect. To improve the effectiveness of this system and to correct the anomalies, the bill also makes some technical amendments to the Family Law Act and the Bankruptcy Act 1996.

Earlier this year the government released the proposed changes in a report for public scrutiny. The response was overwhelming and very much positive, in support of the changes which are being proposed. The reason why that has occurred is that people understand that we do need to show that domestic violence and child abuse will not be tolerated. That should not be something that occurs in Australian homes, and we—not necessarily government—as community leaders in a modern society should all pledge to work to stamp it out. For that reason this issue is so important.

The amendments being proposed by the opposition, given my reading of them, in effect water down, not strengthen, what is in the legislation. The opposition proposes that a definition of violence be removed from subjectivity and it wants to repeal the mandatory cost order provisions of the bill. It wants to do this against the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission, numerous government reports—which I have already mentioned—and the Family courts violence review. This is not some form of political game. We do not come here to put a piece of amendment legislation through just because it needs reviewing. There is a need for this.

In my electorate I sponsored a student from the ANU, under the intern program, to produce a report for me on domestic violence in the south-west of Sydney. Many of the things that this piece of legislation is intended to deal with were actually discovered by Ms Zara Maxwell-Smith in her report, which I will endeavour to table in this parliament in due course. I think it is a credit to the ANU that this program exists. It is also something that I could actually target to ensure that we did have constructive and contemporary analysis occurring in the south-west of Sydney in respect of abuse and domestic violence and its impact on our community. One cannot believe that protecting child victims and other victims of family violence should meet with anything other than bipartisan support. This is not a time for playing political games and arguing about the position of authorities on this. I would have thought that it would be noted that what has been tabled so far, given the support for each of the law reform commission reports that have been tabled as well as the Family courts violence review, are there because there is an issue at law. They are there because those bodies believe that children deserve move, that they deserve greater protection in this respect. So I think we need to show, as parliamentarians, our best endeavours to get the right outcomes for children. This is not necessarily going to be palatable to every defence lawyer out there, and I will let them paddle their own canoe in that respect, but I will stand up and talk about what is good for children. You do not need to be a leading social scientist to work out that there is certainly a link between poor development outcomes and children who have been exposed to family violence, although I do know that there is an abundance of research around in that respect. I represent a low socioeconomic area in Sydney, and what is being proposed here is very real. I know that in my electorate and in the surrounding electorates issues of domestic and family violence remain high. Despite all the good work that police are doing in reducing other crime indicators around the place, everything that I get to see shows that domestic violence and family violence remain stubbornly high. The product of those abuses does impact on a child's development, and they then take that into their maturity.

This is not something that we can sit down and pretend to be lawyers about and show all the niceties of black-letter law. This is something that we want to get right, because our motivation in doing that is to do the right thing to protect the rights and the future of children. We need to ensure that we are talking about this not only in this chamber but also in our electorates. As I say, I have looked at the various statistics in my electorate and they are something that I am not proud of and I am determined to do something about. When I was first elected as the member for Fowler, I identified the issues of domestic violence and family violence as something I wanted to draw greater attention to. I do not want to point the finger at people and say, 'That's really a state policing matter,' or a matter for the Family Court or for somebody else. This is something for our community. What is being proposed here is to give a greater opportunity for the authorities and for the Family Court to do something, in a significant endeavour to give children a better outcome in life.

It is for that reason that I support the bill. I certainly oppose the position taken by the opposition on it. I encourage them to rethink their position and not simply propose amendments for the sake of it. I encourage them to refocus their attention on what is right for the development of young people in our society.

See this speech in context