Barry Wakelin (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is not my intention to speak on the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005 at any great length, except to say that this is an important sequel to some very long discussions. When I first came to this place in 1993 it occupied a lot of our time. We were then in opposition and we regularly had up to 30 backbenchers involved in discussion to see what we could do. It has been a long story. We now have the work of two parliamentary committees in this particular parliament and we had the Andrews committee review of some parliaments ago. This bill is something that every member of parliament very much welcomes.

I have always felt—and I think that, in summing up a bill like this, there is an opportunity to say things like this—that the family law issue, particularly the Child Support Scheme, was one of the very fundamental intrusions into family life. It was ill conceived. It did not have a proper balance between the parents, whether they were mother or father, and it did seem to become somewhat gender biased. I do not know that anyone particularly sought to do that. Some did, but I do not know that the majority did. I think it was just the fashion of the times to endeavour to catch up and deal with the changes of Justice Murphy many years ago in terms of divorce and the subsequent rise in divorce rates et cetera. Now we have something like a 50 per cent breakdown in families, separation of parents, and the issues that result. I am advised that something like a million children—which is a very significant part of our population—are only living with, at best, one parent.

I believe that it was ill conceived, that it was a fundamental breach of individual rights and that, in a democracy, it lacked recourse—it was heavy-handed legislation. It really did create a lot of resentment. As if marriages, as if family separation, are not challenging enough in themselves! Particularly when there is a separation, the resultant sorting out of all of that is stressful enough without adding this quite draconian Child Support Scheme, which intruded in a way which many men, particularly, did not expect. Certainly they came to know it—they came to know it very well—but there was a lot of tragedy along the way. Certainly, in my view, it exacerbated the outcome for very many children.

Therefore, I welcome this bill today. As has been said by many, it will not be a perfect bill. When you are dealing with such difficult issues as family breakdown, the best interests of children and our court system, this will be an evolving issue. As we acknowledge, family law should be about fundamentally supporting our children. We acknowledge that it must respect the rights and, perhaps more importantly, the responsibilities of both parents. Fundamental to me is that, in this very challenging environment of high emotion, it must reduce adversarial advocacy to a minimum as much as possible. If ever there is a time for cool heads, for calm approaches, for conciliation, it is at a time of family breakdown. Therefore—and this challenges the traditional legal approach of adversarial legal practitioners—this is where the more negotiating style, the reconciliation approach, is far more important.

I welcome everything that is in this bill, because it does address a lot of the issues. I will not go over what has been covered in the second reading speech and by many other speakers. I would like to dedicate this bill to the very many members of parliament on both sides of this House who have put so much into trying to come to terms with very dynamic and evolving family and societal issues, particularly to Kay Hull, to Peter Slipper, to Minister Brough, to my colleague to my right, Paul Neville, who has had an abiding interest in this over many years—I know I should refer to these members by their seats, but my memory is not good enough—and certainly to someone like Roger Price.

See this speech in context