David Fawcett (Wakefield, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005. Firstly, I wish to make the point that this is a part of a holistic program that this government is putting in place to support families. This program looks not only at family law amendments but also at changes to the Child Support Agency and, as the member for Sydney has indicated, at the introduction of family relationship centres. These three elements working together are an investment in the future of families here in Australia.

The context of these changes is important because, despite some of the accusations, the focus is very much on what is in the best interest of the child. We are looking here at the rights of the child—what they should expect from their family, whether that be an intact family or a family post separation.

In that context, I want to come back to the family relationship centres quickly before I move on to the rest of this bill. I am disappointed that again the member for Sydney and the member for Gellibrand have tried to score cheap political points from an initiative which is genuinely intended to be for the benefit of Australian families. That was very apparent even in mid last year when the media were reporting on why there was a steering group set up. It was set up because of the interest of backbenchers who wanted to see the very thing Labor are talking about, which is that the implementation of these centres works out.

I will give you a good example. When the member for Gellibrand was talking about FRCs, her focus immediately switched to what I call the tertiary end—looking at referral, counselling and mediation. The focus was very much on families that are going through the painful and damaging process of separating. One of the dangers for the FRCs is that, if they focus purely on that separating end, they will become known as divorce shops.

Part of the real problem—and I am really pleased to see that the member for Sydney highlighted this—is that the proactive marriage and relationship education side will get lost. That is happening at the moment because the oil normally goes to the squeaky wheel and it is the people who are hurting who are demanding a lot of attention, and that is where a lot of the resources go. What we have found is that many people who look at the FRCs look at them purely in the context that the member for Gellibrand did, which is in the context of separating families, and they ignore the incredibly powerful work that FRCs can do in providing services to the vast majority of Australians who are not in that situation.

It is really important that we look at Australian demographics. My friend the member for O’Connor—and I likewise applaud him and Mrs Tuckey for their marriage of 40-odd years—came out with what many people see as fact. He said that the divorce rate is 50 per cent. That is not the case. It is actually far lower than that. The figure of 32 per cent is often now bandied around as a result of work by the Institute of Family Studies, but even that is a figure which goes across a range of decades, looking at marriages and what the risk is of a couple separating over a period of time.

If you look at the censuses taken in Australia from 1901 right through to 2001 you see a continual increase in the percentage of married people in Australia to around 50-odd per cent. There has also been an increase in the percentage of people who are either yet to be married or are widowed. People are delaying entry into marriage and people who are widowed are living longer, and so that percentage is getting larger. But the percentage of Australians who are divorced or separated is around the 10 per cent mark or lower. The actual figure is around two million people. That is a huge figure and there is a huge amount of hurt there. However, that also says that, if we are to prevent more people ending up there, we need to focus on proactively helping families to build stronger relationships so that they do not end up in the situation that this whole family law amendment bill is about. Part of the reason for the existence of the task force is to make sure that the implementation stays on track across the spectrum of measures.

I would like to briefly address some of the other claims about the FRCs before I talk about the family law amendment bill. I believe this point is really important. I agree with members opposite who talk about things like KPIs and looking at performance measures that do not just turn these places into sausage factories. I fully concur with that, and that is why, if you read the operational framework, you will see that throughout it we do not just look at the number of parents who attend the course. The feedback is the number of parents who, after working with an FRC, report a positive improvement in the quality of their communication with the other partner post separation. We are not just talking about the number of parenting plans; we are talking about the number of parenting plans which are still being followed and are adding value at least a year after the parents have been to the FRC. Through the KPIs, it is not numbers; it is numbers and quality, and it is that quality aspect which we are very keen to see in there.

For example, objective 3 specifically looks at the delivery of high-quality, timely, safe and ethical services through the FRC. So there is a focus on quality, because we recognise that just having the centres there is not enough. They must be delivering a quality service to support intact families, whether they are just getting married, having their first kids or having teenagers—that is the phase of life I am in, and I have to tell you that none of us can do that without a bit of help and guidance at times—or whether it is people at the point where they are really struggling and need some assistance.

The issue of competency has also been raised a number of times. I wish to reiterate, as I have before in this place, that one of the processes of the task force is to engage with subject matter experts in industry who are working with families already around Australia—whether it is Indigenous people, whether it is in languages other than English or whether it is people looking at marriage counselling or mediation or people who are expert in screening for violence. One of the functions has been to draw together reference groups and steering committees to guide the skills council as they look at bringing together the framework which is going to outline the competencies and skills that people working in FRCs need.

I would like to lay to rest the two accusations that have been made today: firstly, that the implementation is flawed because of a lack of detail—that is clearly not the case; and, secondly, I would like to rebut in the strongest terms the idea that the task force which the Attorney-General has set up is there for anything other than reasons of making these centres work for the benefit of Australian families. I reiterate again that the members in the task force have specifically had no role in making decisions on issues such as the locations of these centres. I wish that to be on the record yet again.

While we would all like to see families stay together because that is clearly the best outcome for the children, based on the 2001 census we know that roughly 55,000 couples a year separate and eventually go through divorce. This has a huge impact on the children and extended families. Whilst it is not desirable that people reach this point, the fact is that we need to make this process as manageable as we can and to get as much of the adversarial process out of it as we can. I would like to address a few of the key points that these amendments bring in.

I particularly want to address the presumption of shared parental responsibility and the obligation on the courts, under these amendments, to consider if equal time with both parents is reasonably practicable and in the best interests of the child. Many of the people who have spoken against these amendments have left out those last two parts: is it reasonably practicable and is it in the best interests of the child? This amendment provides the platform for the courts to consider whether the involvement of the other parent is something that will be of benefit to the child. Many of the claims that are against this are based around the premise that, before the separation, one parent—normally the father—did not spend equal time with the child. Therefore it will not work and it should not work afterwards and he should not even consider or hold out hope of having anything approaching equal time with the child.

I think most people in Australia accept the fact that the mores of our society mean that there is a social contract that often—not in all families but often—one parent will take on the burden of working and one parent will take on the greater burden of the day-to-day hands-on care of the children. That does not imply that there is a difference in quality of relationship between those two people and their children. The attitude of both parties, and particularly the relationship between those parties, is critical to defining how good the relationship is between the parents and their children.

I look at my own background and I see many service men and women who frequently have to work long hours and are away from their families, but what I also see are some of the best parents and best fathers I have known. They have good relationships with their wives and they have an attitude that says, ‘Where I possibly can, I am going to proactively invest in my relationship with my wife and my children.’ Whilst the time may be limited, the quality of the relationship is outstanding. Obviously there are many people who, even though they have abundant time, do not make a priority of the relationship. I understand then why some of the angst occurs about whether they should have equal time after separation. The argument that says that before separation they did not have equal time and therefore they should not have it afterwards just does not withstand scrutiny.

It is also important to see that the same people who argue that often say that quality time post separation is more important, so the non-resident parent—normally the father—should be happy with a couple of days a fortnight or maybe a week in the holidays, because it is quality that counts. If they really believe that, that undermines the premise of their first argument, which said that because the father was not there in equal quantity of time before separation he cannot possibly have a good enough relationship to make things work seeing more of the child afterwards. It is a self-defeating argument. I believe it is important that not only do both parents have an opportunity to invest in the lives of their children pre and post separation but, more importantly, they have an obligation and a responsibility.

I throw out the challenge to the fathers of Australia to consider the balance of their lives and where they place their priorities, because dads have a fantastic opportunity to shape the culture and the quality of family life such that separation will never occur. They also have the opportunity to add tremendously to the development and growth of their children. I know that many fathers out there are doing that fantastically. Most of us are learning along the way, as we learn about our changing roles as fathers and husbands. There are some people who do need a fair bit of help. All of us can do with help, and some need a bit more than others.

I also wish to address the measures in the legislation that look at domestic violence—the occurrence of it, the threat of it, the reporting of it and the misuse of it. The member for Sydney talked about a person called Jenny—a hypothetical person or perhaps another name for a person that she knew—and was concerned that Jenny had a history of violence with her partner and would not be able to get the protection she needed. Again, I come back to the fact that in the proposed legislation the use of the word ‘reasonable’ means that, where somebody does have a track record and they say that their partner has demonstrably used violence against them or their children and there are circumstances where this has occurred, that becomes a reasonable fear of violence. The legislation allows for exactly the case that the member for Sydney raised.

The legislation also provides some defence against using the fear of violence as a very convenient excuse to short cut a number of other measures. I believe that in this change the checks and balances are there to protect women. The balance is also there to protect men from false claims of violence. I have to say at this point that there are times when men are the victims, not the perpetrators, of violence, and that needs to be recognised.

Before I leave this point, I come back to another area where the FRCs have a vitally important role. As in so many areas of legislation, we react to the symptoms—in this case, violence—but we do not necessarily address the cause. Normally, family violence comes down to the role modelling that people have in their own family of origin, a lack of ability or awareness of how to communicate or how to resolve conflict. The importance of family relationship centres is that they will be another means for providing people with the life skills they need so that they do not have to resort to violence or, if violence has been in their family of origin, that they are provided with the awareness that that kind of conduct is destructive for them, their partner and their children and that they are given alternatives so that they can look at different ways of dealing with those problems.

I am pleased to see, and I certainly support, in the amendments ways to reduce the level of bitterness of parties in disputes. The measures include mediation and parenting plans through the family relationship centres and the roll-out of what has been trialled through the children’s cases programs in the Sydney courts where there is an inquisitorial rather than an adversarial process—the feedback from that has just been fantastic for both the participants and the judges involved. I welcome in these amendments the encouragement and direction to roll that program out across Australia.

Schedule 2 looks at enforcement regimes. Much of the anger of certain groups in the community comes back to the continual and often vexatious breaches of court orders regarding access. This legislation provides the court with a range of options to better enforce access or parenting orders. Parallel to this are measures under the CSA changes, which were announced today, looking to remove some of the financial disincentive to both partners making that access work.

I think it is important to note that the focus here is on the best interests of the child and the rights of the child to have a relationship with both parents. This means that both parents have a responsibility. The custodial parent has a responsibility to make sure that they provide the opportunity for the child to have access to the other parent and, equally important, the parent who has won through whatever process access rights to that child has a responsibility to make sure that they are there consistently for that child.

In the case of a number of single parents that I know of, the other parent does not provide any input to the child and I have seen the devastating impact of that on those children. It is important to note in this legislation the encouragement for both the resident and non-resident parent to see that they have not only the opportunity but also the responsibility to have that contact, because the child is the one who has the right to have the contact and a meaningful relationship with both parents.

In conclusion, it is important that the parliament recognises that the best interests of the child are served by a healthy, functional, loving and caring family environment where both mother and father remain in the marriage and provide such an environment for the children. It is important that we support bodies like the FRC, but it is also important that we acknowledge that marriage is not an agenda from a particular part of the community, as was inferred earlier by members opposite, but a social good.

Many studies by demographers and social researchers in Europe, the United States and Australia demonstrate the physical and mental health benefits as well as the financial and educational outcomes for children who are raised in a stable, loving marriage. Not every marriage is perfect, and the whole process of working through difficulties often makes a relationship stronger and the children more resilient. Just because marriages are not perfect does not mean that the parliament should not publicly and frequently advocate and support it as an institution.

Marriage is not an agenda of a particular part of the community. At some point in time, 72 per cent of our community express the desire to be married and supported. Christians, Hindus, Muslims, the Jewish community and many people who have no allegiance to a faith still recognise the value of marriage. So I believe it is not an agenda of one group but a social good that this government should support. For those who for reasons quite often beyond their control do not find themselves in a position to follow through for the 47 years that the member for O’Connor has in his marriage, this legislation provides some significant and welcome changes that will ease the process of the separation that does cause so much pain to so many families. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Ripoll) adjourned.

See this speech in context