Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Hansard source

At the outset I want to say there is much of what the member for Moreton has said in his contribution that I agree with. The child's interests must come first. Children are so important. He also made remarks to the effect that these cases are individual and unique and it's never easy. Family law is one of the toughest things that we as parliamentarians deal with, but truly it's one of the toughest things that families have to deal with, particularly at that awful break-up stage—child custodial arrangements and the like. There was much in the member for Moreton's comments that I certainly agree with.

This particular bill, the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023, proposes significant and important changes to the Family Law Act 1975, responding to the inquiry by the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System, which tabled its final report on 22 November 2021. I acknowledge the member for Moreton's passion in this. I know he's been a long-time advocate for better outcomes in family law. I want to acknowledge too the efforts by former members of parliament, such as the late Alby Schultz, who was the member for Hume before the present member for Hume, Angus Taylor. I acknowledge the work that Mr Schultz did in this regard. His files were significant, and I know that he passed many, if not all, of those files onto the former member for Dawson George Christensen. They were advocates for better outcomes for dads. Sometimes, fathers were the forgotten people when it came to getting justice in family law, and Alby Schultz and George Christensen certainly fought the good fight on behalf of fathers. There are no rights or wrongs when it comes to family law.

I know that my predecessor, Kay Hull, was a champion in this place for better outcomes in family law, for mums, dads and children. She headed an inquiry which reported in December 2003, 20 years ago. It seems a long, long time ago. The report was Every picture tells a story: report on the inquiry into child custody arrangements in the event of family separation. It was produced by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs. She led that inquiry.

I spoke to Mrs Kay Hull AO yesterday about this bill and about the provisions that her inquiry brought about, which were fairer and better arrangements in the event of families separating and parents going their separate ways, and the outcomes of that for children. She commented to me that, prior to the recommendations in that report being adopted, 60 per cent of her work was on child custodial arrangements and family separation. That's a lot of the work of an MP. As we all know in this place, there are long hours in being a member of the House of Representatives, and when you consider that 60 per cent—Kay wasn't exaggerating—was going into these arrangements—and it wasn't just her. It was other members as well, right across the board, right across every seat in Australia. I know the work that Kay went to in trying to achieve better outcomes, and I'll mention that in a short while.

As I said, this bill makes extensive changes to the Family Law Act over nine different schedules. What we, as members of the coalition, would contend is that the bill should be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for an inquiry, for further investigation. We want to see the best outcomes, for children in particular.

The most contentious parts of the bill relate to changes to the basis on which courts make parenting orders. In particular, this bill would remove the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. It was introduced under the Howard government. It was introduced after the tabling of the report Every picture tells a story. Views on this issue are divided. You'll get people who are very hostile in their opposition one way or the other. Labor advocates the complete removal of the presumption; others acknowledge that the presumption needs clarification but believe that its effects should be retained.

It is interesting to note—and Mrs Hull made reference to it in the report—that the member for Dickson, the current Leader of the Opposition, was on that inquiry into child custody arrangements. He would know, being a former policeman, just how difficult it is when it comes to families breaking up and when it comes to custodial arrangements. Sometimes the police have an impossible task when they're called to households to sort out disputes that have not otherwise been sorted out by lawyers, at last resort, or, dare I say, by the parents themselves. Indeed, in the report Every picture tells a storyI'm reading from the foreword—it says:

One of the highlights of committee work for parliamentarians is the people we meet. During this inquiry our greatest delight was hearing from the nine children and five young adults at our final meeting of the inquiry. These children and young adults were a microcosm of what this inquiry was all about.

These 14 young people talked about the important issues of the inquiry—what it was like for them when their parents were separating and how their living arrangements were decided.

Indeed, when we consider what the divorce rate was back then and what is now, we know that it's probably significantly higher now. I'm lucky; I live in a loving relationship with my wife of nearly 37 years, Catherine, and our three children. I'm very, very privileged and lucky to have had such a supportive wife and family. Not everybody has that luck and that privilege.

Kay wrote:

These children and young adults were articulate, open, funny, serious and sometimes sad.

You can imagine that would be the case. She went on:

They told us their stories and as a result the real meaning of this inquiry was clearly understood.

Another young boy, Jack, who we were unable to meet with, told us his story through his four drawings. We are so grateful to Jack for the pictures which we have used on the cover and inside cover of our report. Jack's story is a simple and complex one at the same time. It is a story we can all identify with in some way. Every picture tells a story.

She went on to talk about Jack, and then wrote:

Over the past six months of the inquiry many people have assisted the committee with its work. Over 2000 people have contributed to this inquiry through tasks such as making submissions, appearing at a hearing, making a community statement, facilitating the committee's visits to the courts and mediation centres and providing exhibits.

She said:

As the chairman of the House Family and Community Affairs Committee I always think that every inquiry is the hardest that we have undertaken. However, I can say that this definitely was, and will be the most difficult inquiry any member will ever have to undertake. The committee devoted all of their individual electorate time outside of the parliamentary sittings, to travel to the hearings right across Australia.

It is difficult. There are no right or wrong, black or white, answers, because every case is unique. I know that this inquiry took a terrible personal toll on Kay, because those of us who know Kay Hull know that she puts her heart and soul into everything she does. She was deeply concerned, when we spoke yesterday for a good 25 minutes, about this bill—about what it meant, about whether the provisions of the Every picture tells a story report would be watered down in any way, shape or form. I know that we've moved on, that conditions have changed and that laws can't stay the same forever. And I know that it's been 20 years since this report was handed down. But when you look at the recommendations that Every picture tells a story made, and you know that, of the members on that committee, the only member still in the parliament is the opposition leader, and you look at the various terms of reference for Every picture tells a story, you get a good idea and a good insight into how valuable it was and about how bipartisanship worked not for the sake of bipartisanship but for the sake of children. Surely we are in this place to better the lives of the constituents, the people who elect us, and, most importantly, of their children because, at the end of the day, that's who it should be all about.

As I say, in this bill there is the controversial removal of the presumption of equal shared parenting responsibility. You get many calls as members of parliament—many, many calls—and some of the most devastating calls are from dads who have been denied the right, for various allegations that have been raised or AVOs that were taken out against them—and at the end of the day, it does become a 'he said, she said'. What we don't want to see is the awful toll it takes on them; dads having an even worse time. I note the presumption does not apply when there is abuse or family violence—and nor there should be; that's a given—but many fathers, and some mothers too, are really prejudiced against when it comes to seeing and meeting their children and having fair and equitable access to their kids.

There must be nothing more heart-wrenching or heartbreaking for a parent not to be able to see their offspring, not to be able to see their kids. So many times these particular cases of hardship that are brought to members of parliament are raised at those important times—Christmas and holidays. There are many, many good parents who are denied access to their children for no other reason than that they've had various allegations made against them that, quite frankly, do not stack up. What we don't want to see is parents missing out for the sake of some legislation that overrides a very good report that the former member for Riverina introduced.

The bill also deals with sensitive issues around the enforcement of parenting orders and who is considered a relative in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families.

We know that the handling of this bill is delicate. We understand that. We know that we don't want to see extreme and divisive approaches in this particular legislation or in the debating of this particular bill. That's why we want the bill referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for an inquiry. It would be good to take evidence—perhaps even from people who gave evidence to the Every picture tells a story inquiry 20 years ago. I'm sure Mrs Hull would be available. She is very much a public advocate for the greater good. It would be good to get people with that lived experience, such as her and others, at this point in time, at this juncture, to tell their story, to tell their lived experience, to give the benefit of their wisdom of having seen how that report made such a difference in the lives of families over the past two decades.

This is, as I say, a very difficult piece of legislation; family law always is. We want the very best outcomes for parents—of course, parents come in many different ways and forms these days—and, as I said at the outset and as the member for Moreton also contended, for the children. At the end of the day, they are the ones who are most important, and they deserve the very best outcomes for this particular legislation. I certainly commend that this bill be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for further investigation and inquiry.

See this speech in context