Stirling Griff (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Civil Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2017, which is an omnibus bill intended to make a number of minor, technical and uncontroversial amendments to improve the operation and clarity of a number of pieces of civil justice legislation. Coincidentally, the bill amends the Marriage Act and the Sex Discrimination Act.

When this bill was introduced to the chamber last year, my former colleague Senator Kakoschke-Moore saw it as an opportunity to annexe Senator Dean Smith's marriage equality bill. Her amendment to this bill would have spared the LGBTIQ community the indignity of a very divisive postal survey campaign. Unfortunately, the Senate did not support her courage and conviction to bring on the bill last August and debate those amendments. Instead, this parliament was intent on playing Pontius Pilate politics and throwing the lives and love of the LGBTIQ community on the mercy of the Australian people. Thankfully, Australia rose to the occasion and the result was an overwhelming yes for marriage equality.

Whilst this bill is essentially non-controversial, schedule 6 makes numerous changes to the Family Law Act. This required referral to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for inquiry and report. I thank the committee for the diligence in which they undertook examination of schedule 6. The Nick Xenophon Team is broadly supportive of the measures contained within the schedule, which are intended to strengthen Australia's response to international parental child abduction; to clarify a range of persons who may perform the powers of the registry managers in the Family Court of Australia or any other court exercising family law jurisdiction; to improve the consistency of financial and other provisions for de facto and married couples; to assist the operation of the family law courts; and to make minor and technical amendments to the various provisions of the Family Law Act.

The measures relating to international child abduction include the introduction of new offences for the wrongful retention of a child overseas, in addition to the existing offences for the wrongful removal of a child from Australia where parenting orders have been made or proceedings for such orders are pending; the application of extended geographical jurisdictions to the new offences and existing offences in the Family Law Act for the wrongful removal of a child; rules for the making of arrests under the Family Law Act; and extending the category of eligible people who can apply to the Family Court for location orders. The Nick Xenophon Team is broadly supportive of the proposed measures.

The new offences proposed in the bill appear to implement in part previous recommendations or advice of the Family Law Council of the then government in 2011 and 2012 about measures to strengthen Australia's legal response to international parental child abductions. The new proposed offences are also broadly consistent with the recommendations of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee in its 2011 inquiry into international child abduction to and from Australia.

Each year, approximately 125 children are unlawfully removed from Australia. In many cases, children are removed to non-Hague Convention countries where there is next to no legal recourse for the parent who has lost their child or children.

We all remember the infamous case of the four sisters born and raised in Italy to an Italian father and their Australian mother who, in 2010, brought the sisters to Queensland under the guise of a four-week holiday. When seeking assistance from the Australian embassy, the mother reportedly told staff she was fleeing an abusive husband. Then in 2012, in defiance of orders to return to Italy to resume a shared custody arrangement with their father, the mother hid the children with the assistance of family. Ultimately, the children were returned to Italy to live with their father where they remain to this day. The mother never faced charges for unlawfully keeping the children in Australia. Indeed, Justice Forrest insisted on an undertaking from the girls' father that he would not pursue the mother in Italy for child abduction, despite warnings that an undertaking against prosecution may not be legally binding across borders. The custody battle and media storm surrounding the family is a salient reminder to parents to pursue a relocation case through the courts instead of risking the damaging and unlawful actions of child abduction.

Children have a right to a meaningful relationship with both parents. This is in the best interests of the child. This is enshrined in the Family Law Act but, unfortunately, too many parents are so caught up in parental conflict that they lose sight of what matters most—the health and wellbeing of their children. Some here may also remember Sally Faulkner's desperate attempt to retrieve her children from Lebanon during the ill-fated snatch-and-grab with 60 Minutes in 2016 after her husband unlawfully retained their children also on the proviso of a holiday. Lebanon is also not a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and, despite Ms Faulkner obtaining court orders in Australia pertaining to the children, her ex-husband will never face justice for unlawfully retaining the children, aged just six and three at the time.

I cannot fathom how a father like Ali Elamine can look into the innocent eyes of his children and deny them their loving mother. To break the bond between parent and child is unspeakable and will cause his children lasting psychological harm, and evidence shows will affect their ability to form and maintain ongoing relationships. In our modern age, those children will no doubt reconnect with their mother through social media. But you can't hug a computer. The damage done through forced separation is reckless and irresponsible. Whilst we support the proposed measures, we remain sceptical that parents who seek to alienate children from the other parent will ever face justice. Nevertheless, we agree it is important to tighten the current provisions so that we can have stronger, more robust enforcement in relation to international child abductions.