Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

While I'm not a lawyer, I would suggest any discussion in the area of family law tends to elicit a variety of opinions, heated responses and heightened emotional reactions. There are those that see changes as positive and those that are offended by them. So it is with respect and a commitment to being circumspect that I rise to speak to the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023.

As a mother of three children, and as someone who herself has gone through a divorce, I acknowledge that oftentimes the families who end up at the pointiest end of the process in family courts are those where there has been a fundamental breakdown in a couple's capacity to communicate. Emotions are heightened. No-one chooses or plans to end up in this environment, yet many do. It is with that reality in front of our minds that I think each of us in this place must weigh up the amendments that we see present in this bill.

Having done just that, and having spoken with many across my community, as the member for North Sydney I believe the amendments to family law being proposed through this bill do seek to make the system safer and simpler for separating families to navigate and, importantly, seek to ensure the best interests of the child are placed at its centre. Establishing an enhanced, court-led information-sharing framework relating to family violence, child abuse and neglect, risks and parenting procedures should, if executed well, simplify what can be an overwhelming, toxic and repetitive cycle. Extensive inquiries into the Australian family law system have taken place over recent years, and it is the recommendations of those inquiries that have led to these proposed reforms. For many involved in this process, they have been too long in coming.

Both the Australian Law Reform Commission's 2019 report into the state of Australia's family law system and the 2021 joint select committee inquiry into Australia's family law system highlighted a number of challenges, including extensive court delays, complex and confusing legislation and inadequate protection for people at risk of family violence. While this legislation is focused more broadly on the recommendations relating to the arrangements of separating families and the best interests of the child, I note the inclusion of recommendations specifically focused on improving protections for those who are at risk of family violence through separation, the majority of whom are women and children.

Court data shows family violence was alleged in 80 per cent of matters filed in the Federal Circuit and Family Court during the last financial year. From a broader perspective, with National Domestic Violence Remembrance Day being marked last Wednesday, as a nation we must grapple with the reality that it's estimated that up to 15 women have lost their lives to domestic violence this year alone. The shocking truth is that intimate partner violence is the main cause of illness and death in women aged 18 to 44 in Australia, and women and children in this country have actually never been more vulnerable. Historically, those in this place have let them down.

Recently my team received a call from a woman in North Sydney fleeing family violence with her three young children. Through tears, she shared her story of losing everything because of her partner's coercive control, and she pleaded for help to find affordable housing in North Sydney. She said someone had told her to ring her federal member to see what could be done because surely—and I quote her—'I'm not the only one going through this.' As leaders in this place we have a responsibility to ensure judicial processes work for the most vulnerable of families because ultimately, I believe, many traumatic experiences should be preventable. While there are many areas of urgent unmet need, ultimately the family law system needs to be equipped to better protect women and children who are fleeing dangerous relationships.

To this end, I support the proposed amendments to the family law framework because I believe the changes, including those which cover the factors to be considered when making parenting arrangements in the best interests of the child, will lead to the creation of better parenting orders. Bringing the best interests of the child to the centre of the decision-making is crucial to protecting children and is consistent with Australia's international obligations under article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Nearly half of all divorces in Australia are couples with children under 18 years. This doesn't include the breakdown of relationships where couples have been cohabitating but not married. The Australian Institute of Family Studies research into child wellbeing after parental separation found children desire the following in the process of family separation: to have their views listened to by their parents when deciding parenting arrangements; to be given an opportunity to participate in decisions about their care and living arrangements; to have their concerns about safety and abuse heard and acted on accordingly; and to be given more information about the family law process, including having access to counsellors, psychologists and support groups.

Ensuring the views of children are appropriately heard and considered in family law proceedings, especially in relation to safety and abuse, will improve the outcomes for children navigating the family law system. Enabling proactive court initiated information sharing and improving the efficiency and effectiveness of information sharing between family law and family violence and child protection systems should strengthen the process as it will enable the family court system and family law decision-makers to have timely access to information to support informed decisions which consider abuse, neglect and family violence risk in a more holistic manner.

The inclusion of standalone best interest factors for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children is also welcome, as is the repeal of the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility and the mandatory consideration of certain time arrangements. By previously emphasising shared parental responsibility and presumption of equal shared parenting, ultimately the rights of the parent were being placed above the rights of the child. In a circumstance where children may be placed in a situation where they are at high risk of violence or abuse, that is simply unacceptable.

These proposed reforms, while overdue, give me hope that societal attitudes are changing and, as a nation, we can start to see better protections for women and children experiencing family and domestic violence. I believe, though, we still have a long way to go to protect vulnerable women and children in Australia, and while the government's response to date has been generally positive, I cannot speak to these amendments without acknowledging the notable shortfalls. To make the family law system safer and simpler, placing the best interests of the child at the centre of family law requires further measures—namely, there remains no definition of coercive control in family law, and this is an issue. Controlling access to finances, monitoring movements and driving isolation from friends and families all are, sadly, common occurrences in those matters that tend to end up in front of the family law court.

In my own electorate of North Sydney the prevalence of coercive control in current family violence cases navigating the judicial system is truly devastating. Proceedings are often intentionally delayed and bogged down in attempts to obstruct the partner's ability to move on, particularly a woman's ability to move on. In this context, this legislation could be vastly improved through the inclusion of an expanded definition of coercive control, one which considers patterns of behaviour over time and provides guidance about responding to competing allegations of violence, with a focus on the person most in need of protection.

In addition to this, on the latter end of court proceedings, physical pathways to facilitate safer movement away from a violent perpetrator are still too difficult. Housing affordability and availability, financial support and ongoing protection mean vulnerable women and children are often having to choose between staying in an unsafe home environment and homelessness. The government's National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children encourages women to leave violent relationships, but the truth is that current government policies see that as many as half who do leave live in poverty.

The government's commitment to women's safety in the budget is welcome, including measures to address service gaps to support frontline service delivery, a review of emergency accommodation services and their suitability for children and the extension of the escaping violence payment trial. But I urge the government to listen closely to those already working in this space to better understand the complexities and challenges faced by vulnerable people and the relevant services. Crisis and family support services are doing everything in their power to help vulnerable families, but the surge in demand for such services mean crisis centres are overflowing. A centre in my own electorate of North Sydney had to turn away no fewer than eight women in one day, recently. This is exacerbated by the housing and cost-of-living crises.

I support stakeholder calls to develop urgent and practical ways for victims of family violence to physically move away from the perpetrator, particularly in circumstances of highly dangerous and potentially lethal relationships. I believe a large part of this is stronger and more immediate action on the supply of affordable housing, in addition to the measures announced in the budget. But I'd also like to advocate for the specific recognition of family violence in property settlements, to relieve the economic burden on victims of violence and their children. Being driven into poverty for leaving an abusive relationship should be avoidable. Access to any co-owned property assets should be prioritised for vulnerable partners and their children.

I must further highlight the lack of adequate mental health and psychological support for children navigating family separation, exacerbated in the case of family violence. More work needs to be done to publicise mental health services which are available for children in post-separation contexts and to ensure they can access services. Additionally, the mental health workforce needs to be appropriately equipped to provide this support to children and adolescents. I support sector calls that adequate funding be allocated to specialist child and adolescent psychiatrists, including more supervisor positions, and to ensure there are enough specialist psychiatrists to meet the needs of children involved in family law proceedings.

Ultimately, while there have been improvements to the 'best interests of the child' definition, more needs to be done. Developing a standalone safety best-interest principle for children in cases involving family violence would better highlight the risk and safety issues for children and adult victims and would ensure greater protection for children. Inserting recovery in such a best-interest factor would assist the family law system in prioritising the recovery needs of children and non-offending parents, which is consistent with the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children.

Sadly, all in all the family law system remains chronically under-resourced. Underfunding of the family law system by successive governments over many years has left vulnerable families in crisis. With the rise in the rates of family separation and domestic violence in Australia—and extensive court delays, backlogs and inaccessibility to the court system becoming the norm for many—funding in this area must be increased to match demand. Families in violent situations cannot afford to wait.

In conclusion, while there remains great need to further protect vulnerable families navigating the family law system, particularly women and children facing family violence and abuse, we must start somewhere, and these proposed reforms are just that—a start. Progress in the area of family law has been a long time coming, and I look forward to continuing to work towards a system that delivers justice for families, particularly single mothers and children in vulnerable situations.

See this speech in context