Kym Richardson (Kingston, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today in support of the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005. This bill forms an integral part of the Howard government’s family law reforms, which aim at creating a much more accessible family law system which encourages the parties to a separation to, where possible, resolve their dispute outside a court. Our reforms also aim at ensuring that at all times parents remember the welfare of their children and ensure that that welfare is paramount in any decisions made which impact on their future.

As a former police officer, I have seen first-hand the heartache, emotions and hardships affecting not only the children but the parents of a broken marriage. When I was 13 years of age, my parents broke up. After moving back and forth to the family home, with seven different addresses over a three-year period, I can assure you that the emotional roller-coaster was quite one for me. Fortunately for me, my mum was a guiding light. She provided unbelievably for my older brother and sister and me, very regularly to the detriment of herself. I was able to visit and see my father, now passed away, as often as I liked, which was a key element in me staying on the right track. And here I am today.

It is a privilege to speak on this bill for and on behalf of the electorate of Kingston. This bill in particular is aimed at promoting the right of children to know both of their parents. This is a right which cannot be underestimated. In years gone by, when the divorce rate in this nation was much lower, the right of Australian children to know both their parents went without saying. But what also went without saying was the benefit that dual parenting had on children.

Under the Family Law Act, as it currently stands, courts are required to put the best interests of the children first when considering custody arrangements. What I simply cannot understand, therefore, is how it is possible, except in situations where a child is at risk—I reiterate: except in situations where a child is at risk—for courts not to enforce meaningful access arrangements which facilitate strong relationships between the child and both of its parents. How can a relationship between a child and both of its parents not be in the absolute best interests of the child? I am not talking about token visits every second weekend and a couple of weeks during school holidays. The most meaningful relationships with children are formed during the difficulties they encounter in every day life: watching them do their homework and helping them, listening to how their day went at school, watching them play sport, and being a part of their growing up. A whole generation of parents is going through parenthood without ever having been afforded the opportunity to do those things, which means a whole generation of children is missing out on a meaningful relationship with one of their parents.

There is no doubt that relationships are difficult, even more so when there are children involved. The breakdown of relationships in these circumstances is devastating to all of the parties involved. This legislation is about making the law that little bit fairer. At the end of the day, no amount of legislation will stop parties to a failed relationship feeling hurt and angry and, in some cases—sadly—using the children of that relationship to hurt the other party. All we can do as legislators is to make the basis for those situations as fair as possible.

There has been no major reform to the Family Law Act since its inception in 1975. Over the past 30 years the way family breakdown is viewed and the level of family breakdown in the community have changed considerably, but this is the first time we have seen amendments to the legislation to make sure it adequately reflects the needs of separating parents and their vulnerable children in a new era. Schedule 2 of this bill strengthens the powers contained within the Family Law Act to deal with breaches of court orders. I have spoken to so many constituents who have expressed the view that the changes we make to ensure parents’ access to their children are irrelevant if we do not also strengthen the enforceability. I have met so many constituents in my office who have shown me a court order which affords them the right to have access to their children—for example, every second weekend—but tell me it has been months since they have seen their children. When I have asked these parents why they have not returned to the Family Court, they have invariably told me that the court has very little power to do anything other than to pass out a slap on the wrist. Because we support the right of children to know both of their parents, not just in theory but in practice, we include in this bill the amendment contained in schedule 2, which gives the court a much wider range of powers to deal with these breaches. These include the ability to impose cost orders, bonds, make-up time and compensation.

Schedule 3 of the bill contains changes to court procedures to make the process less adversarial. The traditional adversarial system, which pits each party against the other in a court of law, is quite simply not appropriate when we are dealing with children and a family breakdown. We must encourage parties wherever possible to resolve their differences in a cooperative manner which may enable an amicable relationship between parents throughout their children’s lives. The changes contained in schedule 3 are aimed at achieving just that. Schedule 4 ensures that separating and divorcing parents have access to counselling and dispute resolution services. This further supports the government’s policy of ensuring the availability of services that assist parents to resolve their disputes in an amicable fashion.

Schedules 5 and 6 implement recommendations of the Family Law Council to clarify the role of independent children’s lawyers as best interest advocates and to make the relationship between parenting orders and family violence orders clearer and easier to understand. Schedule 8 removes the terms ‘residence’ and ‘contact’ and replaces them with the term ‘parenting orders’, which emphasises the need to make the system more family focused.

More than one million Australian children have a parent living elsewhere. Even sadder than that is the fact that one in four never sees one parent or only sees them once a year. We cannot simply blame this sad statistic on the stereotype of the mum and dad who do not care about their parental role, which we so often hear about. With a number that large, you have to recognise that the longstanding failures in the system are contributing to the heartache; it is not just the stereotyping. This is a difficult problem. Any legislative arrangement which seeks to regulate the breakdown of a relationship will be a challenging one to reform, but this government does not shy away from the difficult problems, and it has done and will continue to do all that it can to assist families, especially children, in what are difficult times.

This bill is just one more step in our policy of family law reform. We recognise that the system is fundamentally flawed. Today with this bill we take another step towards fixing the system, along with the introduction of a national network of family relationship centres, which I lobbied the Attorney-General and the members of the cabinet very hard for. Fortunately for Kingston we have been and will be successful. There is also the raft of family law amendments that have already been passed by this parliament. We seek to make family breakdowns something which is governed by a fair and equitable system and we seek to make them something which is in decline.

What is more, this government has more to come. We will implement across-the-board reforms to the child support system in this country and we will continue to implement changes which seek to resolve disputes associated with family breakdown in an amicable way before they reach the courtroom. Never in Australia’s history have we seen such a high level of family breakdown, and never in my history have I seen such animosity and genuine hatred between separating parents who at some point loved each other, created a child and brought a child into the world. These children are our future, and we cannot afford to experiment on them with a system that risks not affording them the right to develop a meaningful relationship with both their parents. We cannot know today what the impact of a failing family law system will be on our children and grandchildren. I for one would rather not find out. For that reason, I am a huge supporter of this government’s attempts to fix the system. For that reason, I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context