Steve Gibbons (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate on the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005. Labor have stated that we support the concept of shared parenting because we believe the needs of children are best served by both parents staying in contact with their children after separation. There have been significant changes in the numbers of separated fathers who take an active part in caring for their children and it is appropriate that the law recognises that patterns of parenting are changing whilst still acknowledging that mothers are still providing the majority of care for children in the community.

This bill incorporates measures that attempt to simplify court processes involving children and to make them less adversarial by encouraging parents to try to resolve differences where possible without the need for the intervention of courts. As my colleague the member for Gellibrand has said, Labor supports changes that will promote family dispute resolution outside the courtroom. This has the potential to save a lot of time, money and frustration.

This bill is part of a package that includes a significant new government contribution to the funding of family relationships services. It includes $200 million towards increased funding of services under the existing Family Relationships Services Program. Labor enthusiastically welcomed this new money when it was announced. Indeed, we have been arguing for a number of years that these services have been sorely neglected by the Howard government.

Labor have introduced an amendment proposing a series of measures we believe will strengthen this bill. They are:

(1)

notes that the first priority of family law should be to promote and secure the best interests of children and that this requires a focus on:

(a)

the responsibility of parents to care for, love and provide security to children

(b)

the need to prevent children from being victims of, or exposed to, violence, abuse or neglect, and

(c)

without compromising the above, the benefit to children of knowing and spending time with their parents;

(2)

notes that, despite this Bill, the Howard Government has made shared parenting before and after separation more difficult through its constant attacks on Australian families, such as the recent industrial relations changes and its failure to meet the chronic child care shortage;

(3)

notes the risk that the Government is creating false expectations that this Bill will create a right for parents spending equal time with their children, when the Bill does not do this, in many cases this would not be appropriate and it shouldn’t automatically be the starting point for negotiations;

(4)

notes that the Government has improved its Bill by adopting Labor’s ideas that:

(a)

for parents intent on demanding parental ‘rights’, the Court will consider the extent to which parents have exercised their responsibilities as parents-recognising that parenting is a two-way street;

(b)

strengthened compliance measures should be coupled with costs for nuisance complainants, so that the right to seek a remedy cannot be used irresponsibly;

(5)

notes that the effectiveness of these reforms will fundamentally depend on the implementation of the Family Relationship Centres program, so that these centres can provide appropriate advice, counselling and referral as well as dispute resolution services and calls on the Government to commit to:

(a)

providing adequate resources to Family Relationship Services and Centres;

(b)

regular reappraisal of needs and funding to ensure free services;

(c)

requiring that Family Relationship Centres focus on quality advice, not simply quantity of parenting plans;

(d)

equipping staff to detect the signs of family violence and child abuse and manage violent clients;

(e)

ensuring that Family Relationship Centres do not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, age, disability, gender or socio-economic disadvantage and are not used to advocate or encourage any particular political or religious agenda;

(f)

instituting a well-resourced and effective complaints process for people who have grievances with Family Relationship Centres or their staff;

(6)

demands that the Government immediately release accreditation and quality standards for Family Relationship Centres prior to mediation becoming compulsory;

(7)

notes that, while separating parents should be encouraged to settle their disputes without recourse to the Courts, litigation needs to be recognised and supported as a vital pathway for those cases involving family violence or abuse, entrenched conflict or intractable disputes;

(8)

notes that the Government needs to invest in and make public thorough, longitudinal research on:

(a)

the consequences of family law reform;

(b)

interaction between violence and family law; and

(c)

the need for a broad ranging parliamentary inquiry on violence in the community;

(9)

notes that the Government should, in the near future, conduct a review of how these changes work in practice, with particular consideration of the following issues:

(a)

the operation of the requirement to consult on ‘major long-term issues’ (compared to the original recommendation from the Every Picture Tells a Story report limited to location);

(b)

the interaction of parenting plans and court orders:

(c)

the need to review Schedule 3 as soon as the assessment report of the Family Court’s pilot of the Children’s Cases Program is available, given that these changes are being made before that pilot is completed and evaluated;

(10)

notes the Government’s failure to consider a National Commissioner for Children and Young People, who could provide a role developing expertise in supporting children in family law matters”.

As I said before, we welcome the plan to establish a network of 65 family relationship centres. Well managed and properly resourced, this network could provide an invaluable addition to the family law system—a shopfront, if you like, and an entry point for advice, referral, counselling and mediation services. However, it is disappointing that Bendigo, one of the largest regional centres in Victoria, has not gained one of the family relationship centres. Last year Attorney-General Philip Ruddock announced the location of the 65 FRCs, and again Bendigo was overlooked while Ballarat and Shepparton gained the service.

While some of the areas that gained a centre were in Labor electorates, the majority of centres went to coalition electorates with far less demand for the services than Bendigo provides. The Prime Minister’s electorate of Bennelong, for example, and health minister Abbott’s electorate of Warringah are to receive the service, both with demand levels less than half Bendigo’s potential demand. The services in both Bennelong and Warringah will be located approximately 15 minutes apart, while Bendigo families using the service will have to travel to Ballarat or Shepparton, up to an hour and a half or an hour and three quarters, to access the service.

It is worth noting some of the statistics about the likely clientele for this particular service. For example, in Bendigo one-parent families total 4,215; in Bennelong there are just 2,364; and in Warringah there are 2,176. The figures for total number of families in Bendigo are 16,147; in Bennelong, 15,978; and in Warringah, 14,154. This is where it gets interesting. The figures for family tax benefit category A recipients are: Bendigo, 13,682; Bennelong, 7,654; and Warringah, 5,427. For family tax benefit part B recipients: Bendigo, 10,223; Bennelong, 6,056; and Warringah, 4,497. For parenting payment single recipients: Bendigo, 3,744; Bennelong, just 1,118; and Warringah, 1,073. For single parent payment partnered recipients: Bendigo, 1,408; Bennelong, 720; and Warringah, 248. For child support eligible children recipients: Bendigo, 6,957; Bennelong, just 2,555; and Warringah, 3,914. For child support payees: Bendigo has 4,752 recipients; Bennelong has 1,494; and Warringah has 2,184. For child support payers: Bendigo, 4,107 recipients; Bennelong, 1,643; and Warringah, 2,519.

I certainly do not begrudge those electorates gaining these centres, because obviously there is a need, but clearly Bendigo has a far greater need. Given that the Commonwealth is considering making it compulsory to attend some form of mediation before staring court proceedings to resolve a parenting dispute, it is vital that the Howard government reconsider its decision not to provide this service in Bendigo. A family relationship centre located at Bendigo Salvation Army, for example, would complement a range of related services already being provided very successfully by the Salvos. The minister and the department chose the locations and did not invite submissions or expressions of interest from any areas, including those that most need the service. The minister also relied on information from a Liberal-National coalition backbench committee and it is interesting that seven out of eight members of that committee gained a service in their electorates. I will continue to push hard for this important service to be located in Bendigo. As I said before, the Salvation Army Bendigo’s Fairground Children’s Contact Service has also expressed concern at the Attorney-General’s decision not to grant Bendigo a family relationship centre.

The discussion paper A new approach to the family law system indicated that a key relationship exists between children’s contact services and family relationship centres. Of the 44 children’s contact services sites listed on the FaCS website, only three will not have a family relationship centre in close proximity. All three of them are in rural and remote Australia. They are Bendigo, Alice Springs and Orange. Bendigo is the only Victorian children’s contact service that will not be co-located with a family relationship centre.

The Loddon region population of 200,000 is crying out for a centre. The nearest family relationship centre will be at Ballarat, Shepparton or Melbourne, in the city. There is extremely inadequate public transport from Bendigo to either Ballarat or Shepparton, and a private car trip is approximately 1½ hours one way. These are extreme costs to families, of time and money, particularly because families will be often separated, thereby doubling the overall costs as each parent travels separately. It will be easier for Bendigo families to access the Melbourne city family relationship centre.

The Family relationship centres information paper says that FRCs will have an outreach component and brokering moneys for families to access FRC services in other agencies. If Bendigo people are not to travel, at significant cost, to an FRC, then these models of how an FRC can come to them beg the question as to why an FRC did not get nominated for Bendigo in the first place. It is hard to expect that either Ballarat or Shepparton will spend large amounts of their budgets providing what will need to be full-time outreach services to Bendigo or brokerage of Bendigo services.

Bendigo has no funding under the family relationship services program for men and family relationship services and family violence services. Ballarat has these services already. We are not receiving an FRC. What are the implications for attracting future family relationship services to Bendigo? It would seem unlikely, for example, that one of the new 15 contact orders pilot ‘parents forever’ program initiatives would come to Bendigo without an associated family relationship centre.

Fairground is concerned about the implications for Bendigo separating families. With FRC access denied to them, it is not hard to predict that many will opt for self-management without attending an FRC or the Family Court, without any opportunity to resolve the issues. Also, if a father, for example, cannot get the mother of the children to attend an FRC, a court application places him in the same situation as he currently faces.

Fairground was looking forward to receiving families from an FRC in a prepared, well-managed and child-focused manner. The implications are that now it will see a significant number of families being referred in the same way as at present, through an inadequate Family Court pathway. Consequently, Fairground may have to absorb this extra demand, working in the style of a contact orders program without any of the extra funding. Already it has been expected to absorb the extra costs of penalty rate increases for weekend staff under the SACS Victoria 2000 award, with no prospect of additional funding. Ultimately children may be the big losers from these decisions, as more of them remain stuck in the battleground of conflictual separations. I urge the minister and the government to reconsider placing an FRC in Bendigo, where there is a clear demand for the service.

See this speech in context