Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

In responding to the honourable member for Hume, I thank him for recognising that we will be supporting the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005. He made a contribution of many parts, one of which I want to address. He talked about the area of family law being difficult and complex, and I agree with him absolutely—100 per cent. But I have heard the argument—not that he advanced it—that, because the area is so difficult and complex, we should do nothing or not try to do anything. However, as individual members of parliament, we all have a responsibility in this area to make progress and to make improvements.

There have been two radical pieces of legislation. The first was passed 31 years ago: the original Family Law Act, which brought out no-fault divorce. I support it. I have to say, the system has changed a lot from what was originally envisaged. The same goes for the Child Support Scheme. It is necessary change. But, in both instances, I believe sincerely that there has been a reluctance to try to come to grips with the complexity, the difficulty and the need for equity in both those acts.

I have had a unique opportunity. I served with the honourable member for Riverina, Kay Hull, on the inquiry that produced the report Every picture tells a story. I have no hesitation—and I have done it before—in commending her; the deputy chair, the honourable member for Fowler; and all the members who served on it from both sides. I particularly thank the member for Riverina for also recognising, in her contribution, the role of opposition members. I can say that all the members of that committee were very sincere about the job at hand and really tried to do their best. It is an aspect of this parliament that all too frequently the public are unaware and ignorant of.

As a member of that committee, I then had the privilege to be added onto the House of Representatives Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which considered the first draft of this legislation. Again, I congratulate the members of that committee not only on their generosity and tolerance in accepting me as an additional member but also on the way that they genuinely tried to come to grips with the legislative changes. I think that they did a good job.

There are a couple of things I want to draw out. Let me say from the outset: I sincerely hope that this bill works and that all the expectations we have of the impact that this bill will have on men and women—and, in particular, on children—are realised. I have some reservations, I have to say, but it does not mean that I come here with ill will.

I did want to return to the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee because there is one recommendation in that that has not been picked up by the government. It was a unique recommendation. It was that two parliamentary committees that I sincerely believe had earned their spurs should tackle the issue of family violence—that is, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee and the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services—and tackle it from both ends of the spectrum. I know of no member in this place who can be happy about the violence perpetrated, in the majority of cases, upon women. I recognise that a lot of the responsibility rests with state governments. But, equally, there are frivolous claims of violence.

I know some speakers have referred to a number of studies that have indicated that frivolous claims are not there. So how do I substantiate the statement that there are frivolous claims of violence? Well, I can tell you that I have spoken to a number of lawyers who practise in the Family Court. In fact, I have in mind a QC who only operates in the appeals section of the Family Court. He said to me that perjury is rife in the Family Court, and that is true. The strict rules of evidence—and I understand why—do not apply to that court. In some ways it handicaps the court; in other ways it assists the court. But let no member of parliament be under any illusion. Perjury exists in the Family Court, and hence my assertion that there are frivolous claims of violence.

In proposing that these two committees look at the issue of family violence, it would be unreasonable for the opposition to suggest that we could not look at frivolous claims of violence and that, equally, for government members—and I do not believe they necessarily had that view—we should exclude the actual incidence of family violence. By and large, under the current arrangements, women—who are the majority victims—actually have to be bashed twice before the system springs into action. In any magistrate’s court on the day for these apprehended violence orders, magistrates turn them out like sausages, so often the person who is the subject of the apprehended violence order is urged not to resist it. But, once the order is placed upon them, they are forever labelled in the system as perpetrators of violence. We need to do something about that.

As I say, I would be less than sincere and honest if I did not say how disappointed I was that the government did not pick it up. I have utter faith that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services—the former House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs—chaired by the honourable member for Mackellar, and the legal and constitutional committee, chaired by the honourable member for Fisher, would have done a good job, as they did with this legislation and as they did with the report Every picture tells a story. Why shouldn’t we have a go?

People have said to me that there have been any number of studies in this area, but politicians have a unique knack of getting in there, sensing what is wrong and knowing how to correct it. Why couldn’t this federal parliament have had a go? I understand that, as I said, major responsibility rests with the states, but why couldn’t we have gone in, had a look and seen how we could have really made an impact in this area? I think it shames us all. As I say, I think the current situation is abominable, and we need to do better. I am reminded that in my state we incarcerate people for family violence. At the current time they get absolutely no assistance in overcoming the things that led to them being charged and convicted.

I have always expressed an interest in industry policy. I do not claim to be an expert, but if you are looking at industry policy I think you would agree with me, Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, with your experience, that the first thing you have to do is understand the industry and know it—what size it is. No Attorney-General, Labor or Liberal, has ever looked at the amount of money families spend on private practitioners. When Kevin Andrews, for whom I have a high regard in this area of activity and with whom I worked some time ago, was chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, it was estimated that family violence was costing us $6 billion. I can tell you what the cost of the Family Court is and the associated magistrate’s court, but I cannot tell you how much families are spending on private practitioners, and we ought to know. I think that if ever we did a study the figure would stagger us all. I urge my coalition colleagues—not in a pejorative way—and I urge the Attorney to have a study that looks at that. Since I first became interested in family law, I know that there have been a number of changes designed to reduce people’s dependence on the legal profession or avoid their entrapment by the legal profession, and I welcome it. This is another attempt, and I welcome it. But how much today are families—that is, mothers and fathers and often grandfathers and grandmothers—spending on private practitioners?

When I was working with Mr Andrews, the current Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, we used to talk about three pillars in this area—that is, you had to tackle the three pillars together. One was family law, one was child support and the other was counselling. Unfortunately—and I regret to say that it is still the case, essentially, with this legislation—the Commonwealth will now be spending increased money once we know that the relationship is dead, that there is no life in it. Those Commonwealth dollars will pour out.

I know that there have been changes to counselling for those intending to get married, and I strongly support that. I would urge any couple who were intending to take that wonderful and final step of marriage to participate in premarital counselling. The problem we have today is that lots of couples are choosing not to get married, so there is no intervention point. But, again, if we can provide counselling while the relationship still has some life, slim though it might be, still some blood circulating in it, we are likely—even if we do not save the marriage or the relationship—to make communications a bit easier when it finally ends.

I know that on some of this legislation the fathers groups will say that we have not gone far enough, but I think we have made a big change. In the previous act, it certainly was up to the Family Court to look at joint responsibilities—and I could quote the sections, but I will not. But we have made it doubly clear to the Family Court that they do need to take into account the joint responsibility that both parents have to their children, and that is a good thing.

In the time left to me, I will just say a few more things, very quickly. The original committee recommended a tribunal. I have to say that I have been speaking for about nine years about a no-frills tribunal where couples can have their matters arbitrated at no legal cost. For the report Every picture tells a story, the committee actually had Commonwealth legal advice on two occasions that said that residency and access arrangements were administrative, not judicial. But there is a problem. I have forgotten the case now that the High Court dealt with concerning HREOC. It said that where a tribunal is involved in judicial matters it must be headed by a chapter 3 judge. It is a great limitation for the Commonwealth. In a state, under state constitutions, you can have no-frills tribunals—guardianship tribunals, small claims tribunals et cetera. The committee recommended a three-member tribunal. I supported the recommendation, but you can actually do it with one. The member for Dickson was very keen about an investigative arm. We are not going to get that, and I am not complaining about it.

But the opportunity exists in Western Australia—because the Family Court there still operates under the state constitution—to actually pilot a tribunal where parents can go and, by agreement, have a tribunal arbitrate their matters without any costs. I think it would be very successful. I passionately believe it would be very successful. In this area, I think it is worth trying some things, even if they do not meet our high expectations. I would say to the government, as well as to my own colleagues, getting back to the point made by the honourable member for Hume: it is complex, it is difficult, and it is emotional, but we have a responsibility as legislators to try to solve some problems. I think the Attorney did the concept no favours when he floated in the media that a tribunal would cost six times what the Family Court currently costs—$600 million. I think it was an absurd figure.

There are people that mediation suits. There are people who will have their needs met by family dispute centres. But there are lots of people who really just want decisions made about their marriage and their responsibility, their property and their access, and arbitration. The informal surroundings of a tribunal I think will be conducive to that.

On the family dispute resolution centres: good move. I am concerned about how those centres will deal with pre-existing orders. I have a concern that we need a proper accreditation regime. The other thing is the three hours of free mediation or consultation: I hope it works, but I fear it is too little. And I hope the parliament will be happy to revisit this. Let us set them up and see how they operate and then in 12 months let us have another look and ask: ‘Are they working? Do we need to do something else? Do we need to make changes?’

I passionately plead—because I was shocked in the inquiry that the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee conducted—that we must accredit practitioners. I was absolutely stunned that people who are employed to act as principal persons under supervised contact are not required to be accredited at all. I hope that any member of the House or public who may have strayed onto my speech does not misunderstand me. I strongly support the bill. The opposition will be supporting the bill.

I should have mentioned that, in relation to family violence, the Attorney has commissioned the Institute of Family Studies to look at the problem. I have no high expectation of the outcome. I think that over the years the Institute of Family Studies has been an absolute disappointment, from the time that Andrew Peacock first expressed concerns about it. Again, I am not trying to be churlish; I just think that members of parliament could have done an infinitely better job—and I hope the opportunity is not lost to give it to a parliamentary committee.

Whatever we do, whether it is in this legislation or elsewhere—and I apologise: I have not had a chance to look at child support—as much as we try to get things perfect, we are always going to have to test how they are working. We should not be embarrassed about testing it. We should not be embarrassed about making changes because, as you know Mr Deputy Speaker, community attitudes and norms change over time—very rapidly. And as much as we are genuine in trying to get things right, we are merely humans; we are not going to get it perfectly right. As I said, there is a dynamic society out there, with changes happening more rapidly than perhaps we are prepared to contemplate. So whether it is this bill or the child support legislation, which no doubt we will be debating at a later date, let us not be backward in having a look at it down the track. Let us not be backward about saying, ‘This has worked well,’ ‘This hasn’t worked well,’ or, ‘We need to strengthen things here.’ What family law and child support really need is committed members prepared to make their contributions. (Time expired)

See this speech in context