Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) | Hansard source

One of the most upsetting issues in our country is the break-up of families and the heartbreak that happens for the children, the grandparents and the extended family members. People get married and have relationships because they're in love with each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together, but that is not always what happens, and we have break-ups. I am one of those people who have had marriage break-ups—in fact, of two marriages. I thought I was going to be married for a long time. From both marriages I had two children. So I speak on this matter from personal experience.

When my first marriage broke down, I had parents who never saw the children—didn't want to see the children. In my second marriage, the stepfather was not very kind to the two children from my first marriage, so hence my marriage broke down. It was also from domestic violence, although it wasn't physical domestic violence; it was because of alcohol abuse.

So I know what it's like to go through it as a wife, as a mother and also now as a grandmother—watching my children go through the same issues. I've not been able to see their children, who they're fighting for—a parent denied the right to see their children, for no reason other than that a nasty custodial parent is denying them that right. These are the children that they brought into the world, laughed with, bathed, saw the birth of. You can never take that away from a parent.

That's what I say to a lot of parents out there for whom at one time it was love, happiness and a life together and now it is hurt and pain. I say to these people: get on with your lives; move on, because it must wreck you, tear you apart. The only people who make gains out of this are the lawyers and solicitors or family who are egging you on to keep going with the whole problem. My main issue—and I'm very grateful to be a member of parliament in this place—is to be a voice for the many parents out there who feel they're not being listened to and not being heard.

Family law was brought in in the 1970s to deal with divorce issues. But now I see it as a failed system that is not working in many cases, or even most cases. We have children in our society who are denied the right of seeing their parents, are going through psychological problems and have issues—drug addiction, suicide, self-hate—and we've got to put it all down to something. What I hope to do in moving this bill today is draw attention to it—that we can actually look at ways of improving our system to help those parents and children out there to come to a unified, equitable decision that will help them get on with their lives.

Family law in Australia needs a major review from a practical, non-legal perspective to overcome lengthy delays and costly court actions in an antagonistic, confrontational system. Australians have been forced to ensure the pitfalls of this hugely dysfunctional system for decades. Delays inside the court system are up to six years in some instances in relation to hearings and decisions. Delays outside the court system average 23 months. Whilst it is my opinion that the entire family law system and laws require a holistic view, I am introducing this Family Law (Self-Assessment) Bill 2019 as a measure to overcome those various areas of confrontation and costs which I just mentioned.

The bill seeks to help speed up the resolution of relationship, property and parenting disputes both for couples who cannot afford to go to court and for those who can. Part 2 of this bill creates a new obligation on divorcees to disclose their financial affairs in a simpler and more convenient way, and to divide assets accumulated during the relationship by paying minimum, incontestable sums promptly. It is my belief that those assets that either party brought into the relationship should remain theirs when the relationship separates. I will say here that I'm speaking from what I put into practice. When I left my second husband I walked away from the family home, because that was his home that he had prior to marrying me. He worked for that very hard, as an apprentice plumber. He saved for that block of land and he built the house. Therefore, I didn't feel that I had a right to that house. This will stop those gold-diggers who only come into a relationship for what they can get out of it. To those people who have not contributed to it: I believe in prenup agreements. If both parties agree that they should split their assets that they've accumulated over the years, so be it. But if you bring into a marriage an asset—your land or a house—that was yours prior to that marriage, that should be yours.

Compliance under this bill applies to Australians regardless of wealth or a trip to the Family Court. A statutory timetable of nine months and a series of minimum payment obligations are created. The bill deploys the same broad method of financial self-assessment that former Treasurer Paul Keating invented in relation to income tax and that former Treasurer Peter Costello perfected in relation to GST. The bill requires that each spouse self-assesses a just and equitable division of the couple's relationship wealth and pays up-front to the extent they are not in conflict rather than when all matters are finally resolved.

The majority of court decisions never order less than 35 per cent of a joint property to any individual party. Therefore, separating couples will have obligations to shrink their dispute to balance 30 per cent of their relationship wealth and put the residual money in a joint bank account while they negotiate or mediate. The disclosures will occur at no cost to government. Mediation on financial matters would thus become compulsory in much the same manner as mediation on parenting matters is compulsory under current law, as a result of the reforms enacted by all parliamentarians in 2006.

However, that mediation does not work in most cases as a result of the court system as some parents do not see the children at all. Research shows that compulsory mediation already works to resolve eight out of nine relationship disputes. Introduction of this reform is the economic equivalent of (1) appointing 26 new federal court judges, (2) giving back to separating couples, on average, 450 days of their lives that are currently taken up with payment delays, and (3) quadrupling the effectiveness of Relationships Australia for middle-class Australians. Reducing financial tension in this manner would have more real-world impact on the number of instances of reported family violence disputes than all of the laws passed and all of the funding approved by this parliament in this parliamentary term.

This bill will help restore the original intent of family law legislation—that is, to ensure that calmness, rationality, low cost and speed prevail. This bill does not change the Family Law Act. It just makes the law applicable to all by flipping the compliance burden from the state onto the shoulders of the financially stronger spouse.

Part 3 of this bill will require spouses to each abide by the existing laws on shared parenting. It will require parents who do not wish to comply with shared parenting to explain the reasons why and to mediate regardless of going to court. The existing exemptions for domestic violence remain in place and are bolstered by a number of other more robust exclusions to assist legal aid organisations to be more effective. Custody should be a strict fifty-fifty, except for some alleviating factors: if one of the ex-partners has a criminal record, if one of the ex-partners has a drug offence record or if there is a domestic violence order already in place prior to separation. These three factors are the only circumstances why they may not receive 50 per cent of the custody, but, apart from that, the fifty-fifty custody should be immediate upon separation, with the details worked out via mediation.

Why I talk about fifty-fifty custody is that it is in the legislation, but it's up to the discretion of the judge. I think that it is wrong that parents can be joint parents prior to separation but the next day a parent is denied access to see their children because the person who ends up with the children denies them that right. Then they have to go through the court process to actually see their children, and it goes on for months and months—and sometimes the parent with the children will even go where the other parent can't see them. This should not be allowed to happen. Upon separation, there should be fifty-fifty custody automatically, unless they have a criminal offence—not a drink-driving charge, but a criminal offence that carries with it at least a six month sentence—or they have a drug or alcohol problem or there is a domestic violence order already in place prior to separation.

We have people in Australia who are suiciding. It's estimated that three men a day and one woman a week are suiciding. This is not good enough. If we are the legislators of this nation, we should start looking at how to solve this problem. For too long it's been disregarded and ignored by this parliament and previous governments. It is my aim to push for change. This is a way of looking at it through mediation—that you make these people sit down; they have to mediate. Too many lawyers and solicitors are making a good living out of this. They are dragging these cases on at the expense of people having to sell their homes and walk away with virtually nothing. At the end of the day, the ones that actually go through the court system and get no justice cannot appeal, because they can't afford to take it back to court.

Reducing financial tensions in this manner would have more real-world impact. Ex-couples need to sit together, work out when they will each have their turn to look after the children and get on with it. Parents with reasons to deny standard shared parenting contact hours must state these reasons in a parenting self-assessment notice. Parents—and that most often means the mother—who have no reason and simply use courts to delay the inevitable will be subject to fines, as applies in some other jurisdictions. It is my opinion that, if there is no justifiable reason for the delay, they should lose legal aid or pay the other party's costs. Lawyers who encourage their clients to make false allegations and claims and drag out proceedings should be heavily fined or lose their licence.

I'm going to be tough on this, because someone has to be. What is happening with family law is devastating our community and our society and, unless people are held responsible for their actions, nothing will change. The economic consequences will be a marked reduction in parenting disputes. This bill will thus enable cases with actual domestic violence, as opposed to alleged domestic violence issues, to get priority in the courts. The time for talk about good intentions is over and the time to act is now. There should be fines for those who make false claims of violence.

Where there are no real issues of conflict, the bill requires attendance at an anger management program. These programs are widely used in New Zealand and do a much more effective job than does standing around aimlessly in court foyers. More education and less litigation is in the best interests of everyone impacted by separation—in particular, the children. This bill will also greatly reduce legal fees, which often absorb all the assets of separating couples. This bill will minimise the necessity for legal advice as was recommended by the Productivity Commission report commissioned some years ago. Family law has long been one of my priorities, and I will keep fighting until I see equitable and balanced outcomes for all mums, dads, children, grandparents and other family members.

In summary, this bill does not seek to change the policy of the Family Law Act 1975 but, rather, to ensure that it works in the way that was envisaged—that is, quickly, rationally and cost-effectively. Nothing in the bill precludes a person from then exercising a legal right and going to court but, in most cases, there will simply be no need to do so. This bill proposes the adoption of methods which have been shown to work in other countries. I say to people: please have a look at this parliament, have a look at the bill and have a look at what my proposals are and come up with a really good reason to tell me why they won't work. Otherwise, let's implement this. Let's try and make change to help those people out there move on and get their issues settled so they can get on with their lives, and to give the children out there the opportunity to spend time with both their loving parents.