Senate debates

Thursday, 30 March 2006

Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2006

In Committee

10:23 pm

Photo of Joe LudwigJoe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I do not think it will come as any surprise that Labor does not agree with these amendments. Labor opposes this amendment, which removes the provisions of the bill requiring the parties to mediate disputes before applying for parenting orders, with limited exceptions. This is a matter I went through in some detail in my speech in the second reading debate. Labor supports these provisions in cases where separating couples have not been able to reach agreement on their own but are not so entrenched in their attitudes and disagreements as to require final orders from a court.

There is many a time that you can envisage circumstances where the parties may think they are so entrenched that only court will do but, having found themselves in mediation, they resolve the matters in dispute, which provides a better outcome. They then find that court was not the best outcome in truth. Cases involving what could be described as entrenched family conflict, especially cases involving violence, should not be forced into mediation. There is no argument about that. It seems quite clear. All of us agree that a formal, structured court environment is a far better place for those types of cases. Labor believes the critical issue here is in fact how this law is implemented and how it is going to be dealt with. Insofar as that is concerned, the opposition has said this on a number of occasions: we will be watching the government critically to see how they implement these family relationships centres—as well as the parts of this law more generally—to ensure that the outcomes that they promised do materialise.

Comments

No comments