Ken Ticehurst (Dobell, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I raised this issue in our party room back in September 2002 after coming across two cases where men had committed suicide on Father’s Day because of the unfairness they faced in the system that existed. My attention was drawn to the plight of other fathers, mothers and grandparents who were also suffering needlessly from a ruthless family law system. I came across a Mr Tony Miller, who had formed an organisation called dids—Dads in Distress. Tony told me that 2,500 men a year were committing suicide because they could not get access to their children. I formed an informal backbench committee with some colleagues to pressure the Prime Minister and cabinet for a formal government committee to address the need for family law reform and to overhaul the whole child support system. Four years on, after lots of lobbying, local forums and hundreds of submissions from local residents, the federal government is undertaking the most significant changes to the family law system in 30 years.

The Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005 is part of the government’s bold new reform agenda in family law. The legislation complements the package of messages announced in the 2005 budget, amounting to $397 million over four years. These reforms are great news for families in my electorate of Dobell and indeed across Australia. Once fully implemented, they will bring about some equity in the system, possibly making it one of the fairest systems in the world and improving the quality of life for thousands of broken Australian families. Society has a responsibility to support mothers and fathers, irrespective of their marital status, in fulfilling their roles as effective parents. This is the premise of the Australian government’s family law reforms after all. The strength of our families will determine our children’s futures and the future of our nation.

This bill introduces a new presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. It is not about halving time, although access is a major issue; it is about sharing responsibility. This involves a requirement that parents consult one another before making major long-term decisions on issues such as where the child goes to school, present and future education, major health issues, religious and cultural upbringing, change of surname and usual place of residence. This should be in the form of a parenting plan. Joint custody is a means to an end and not an end in itself. The end is the opportunity for children to know and to have a relationship with both of their parents. This should only happen where the relationship enriches the child. It certainly should not happen when it harms the child. This bill requires that the court consider whether the child spending equal time with both parents is reasonably practical and in the best interests of the child. If it is not appropriate, the court must consider substantial and significant time, including day-to-day routine, and not just weekends or holidays.

While there will always be exceptions, many parents want better access arrangements. They want to meet their responsibilities and they want to do the right thing by their kids. I am hopeful that this legislation will facilitate that. The proposed new system is deliberately less legalistic and more child focused. It reduces the role of the courts by requiring parents to attend family dispute resolution and make a genuine effort to resolve a dispute before taking a parenting matter to court. A less adversarial approach relies on active management of matters by judicial officers and ensures that proceedings are managed in a way that considers the impacts of the proceedings themselves—not just the outcome of the proceedings—on the child. This will promote the best interests of the child by encouraging parents to focus on their parenting responsibilities.

At the same time the bill strengthens existing enforcement provisions by giving the courts a wider range of powers, including ‘make-up’ time and compensation to deal with people who breach parenting orders and who fail to fulfil their major responsibilities—for example, failing to pay child support.

It is important to note that the proposed reforms in this bill will not create further barriers to women and children escaping from domestic violence and child abuse or further discourage the disclosure of violence and abuse. There is a new object to make it clear that children need to be protected not only from direct harm but also where that harm comes from being exposed to family violence against others. The requirement to attend family dispute resolution and the presumption of equal shared parenting responsibility will not apply if there is a risk of child abuse or family violence. In cases where the presumption will not apply, the court will not be obliged to consider the matter of the child spending substantial time with both parents.

The existing definition of family violence is amended to include a requirement of reasonableness, but only in relation to a fear or apprehension of violence. The change does not mean that there is a requirement for reasonableness for violence that has actually occurred or that any violence is acceptable.

I think all members acknowledge the role of grandparents and families affected by separation. I have held several family law forums over the years and met with many grandparents heartbroken because of the current system. Even great-grandparents are affected by this. Recently the member for Berowra cited in the House research from the Institute of Family Studies which confirms the importance of grandparents in caring for children. I have 12 grandchildren myself, so I fully understand where he was coming from.

This role can be even more crucial in cases of separation. Grandparents can exercise a moderating and calming influence at times of great stress and uncertainty for families. This bill will see the role of grandparents better taken into consideration when family breakdown occurs. Parents will be encouraged to consider time spent with grandparents when developing a parenting plan and to include grandparents in mediation and family counselling activities. If the matter proceeds to court, the court will need to specifically consider the importance for the child of the relationship with grandparents.

The government will also be providing funding to legal aid commissions to enable them to provide an expanded dispute resolution process for grandparents seeking contact with their grandchildren. This government recognises the valuable contribution of grandparents to children’s lives. We are determined to assist them in making that contribution.

The Australian government’s bold family law reforms include $189 million to establish 65 family relationship centres across Australia, including one to service my area on the Central Coast. The centres will help families by providing help and advice on relationships. They will be the first port of call when families need to make their relationships stronger or when relationships end. The centres will be a visible entry point for the family law system which will provide some mediation services and refer families to appropriate services. They are not just for separating couples with children; they will be able to help couples without children, mothers, fathers, grandparents and children to get help, advice and support in dealing with family relationship issues. For example, if a couple are about to get married, the centres can provide information about premarriage education; if a relationship is having difficulty, the centre can help get information or assistance to help improve the relationship.

These initiatives represent a generational change in family law and aim to bring about a cultural shift in how family separation is managed—away from litigation and towards cooperation in parenting. The bill reflects the government’s determination to ensure the right of children to grow up in a safe environment with the love and support of both their parents, and places an emphasis on the protection of children without family violence.

The inquiry was not just about a better deal for fathers or mothers. It was about important social legislation affecting some of the most important and vulnerable people in our community—that is, our children. Children have a right to know and to be cared for by both their parents, regardless of whether their parents are married, separated, have never married or have ever lived together. Children have a right of contact on a regular basis with both their parents and grandparents. They can have a stabilising effect in family break-ups. There are no simple solutions, no quick fixes. Each family is different and each child is different. It is not about maternal or paternal preferences. It is about the best interests of the child, and the issue must be approached on an individual basis.

The government hopes that these changes, including the new centres, will change the way people think about family relationships. Most importantly, the government hopes that through these changes more children will have a loving and healthy home environment, whether or not their mum and dad are together, to help them achieve their full potential.

See this speech in context