Harry Quick (Franklin, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I, like other speakers in this place, welcome the opportunity to speak on this most important piece of legislation, the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005. All of us who had the privilege to be part of the then House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs were involved in a frenetic round of hearings that consumed each and every waking moment of our lives for just over nine non-sitting weeks in 2003. We can now see the light at the end of the tunnel.

As a member in this place one is provided with an opportunity to make a difference. I know that is a well-worn cliche, but in this case it is true. Our groundbreaking report produced under the chairmanship of the member for Riverina, Kay Hull, entitled Every picture tells a story:Report on the inquiry into child custody arrangements in the event of family separation, was a bestseller. Thousands of copies were sought by people from all walks of life. The issue we tackled was complex, to say the least. As a committee we were charged with inquiring into, reporting on and making recommendations for action on the following:

(a)

given that the best interests of the child are the paramount consideration:

(i)

what other factors should be taken into account in deciding the respective time each parent should spend with their children post separation, in particular whether there should be a presumption that children will spend equal time with each parent and, if so, in what circumstances such a presumption could be rebutted; and

(ii)

in what circumstances a court should order that children of separated parents have contact with other persons, including their grandparents.

(b)

whether the existing child support formula works fairly for both parents in relation to their care of, and contact with, their children.

(c)

with the committee to report to the Parliament by 31 December 2003.

This issue, which as I said is complex and probably one of the most divisive in our society, impinges on a huge number of families across the length and breadth of our country. It results in trauma for children, parents, grandparents and close family members, and, sadly, it often results in violence and death. Family break-up is a sad reality of modern life, and daily we as members in this place can see at first hand the after-effects of marriage breakdown. We are challenged and confronted to try to sort out the mess, and in many cases we are expected to pick up the pieces. As with the debate we had recently on RU486, members who speak on this bill speak from their hearts because all of us have in some way been touched and affected by this issue.

Just over 30 years ago massive changes were made to the Family Law Act by the then Attorney-General, Senator Murphy. Just over 30 years later we are once again looking at real and significant changes. This bill is a culmination of many years of work by a large number of people, not only the House committee on which I served but also the House Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs chaired by the Hon. Peter Slipper.

It is a shame in a way that in these last stages of the debate we see members in this place behaving and speaking much like divorcing couples, each accusing the other of being wrong and believing they have the right to impose their will on the other. I think that is sad. Our committee in those nine frenetic weeks of touring was confronted by all aspects of this very complex issue. There are no right or wrong ways. I would like to pay a tribute to the Attorney-General because, as with the Attorney-General 30 years ago, he has to have the wisdom of Solomon. When families break down there is trauma. Let us be honest: there are many members of the House of Representatives who have gone through divorce and know at first hand how difficult it is when you split up from your partner and when there are children involved. We have a crazy enough lifestyle as it is in this place, being away from our families for 20 weeks a year, and for probably another 10 weeks wandering around Australia doing committee work. So when our families do split up for a variety of reasons, we go through exactly the same trauma as the people we are expecting to look after when we put in place this bill.

As I said, it is a shame that many in this place are behaving just like those divorcing couples. The phrase ‘the best interests of the children’ should be imprinted on our foreheads, because that is what we should be basing this legislation on. It should not be about the best interests of mum, or dad, or both sets of grandparents, or extended families but about the best interests of the children. We are not talking about 5,000, 10,000, 20,000, 100,000 or 200,000 children; we are talking about close on a million children. They call them the McDonalds children, because every second weekend they travel from the resident parent to the non-custodial parent to see dad or, in a few cases, mum—every second weekend and half the school holidays, if they are lucky. One million children.

As a teacher of 23 years experience, I know the trauma that these kids go through, because I have seen them in the classroom after they have seen dad or mum on their fortnightly visit. The kids are traumatised, and we as teachers are expected to educate these kids. People on either side should not  wax lyrical about how they are right and others are wrong and put forward amendments and give examples of post-feminist crap or whatever. We need to go back and look at what is in the best interests of the children.

When we look at the wonderful report, which I am proud to have been a part of, and at the figures on parental care arrangements—table 1.3, at page 13, records the frequency of visits—we can see starkly just how many children only see their other parent infrequently. We are dealing with a monster. I imagine that when these children who come from blended families form relationships they are going to create more problems than we can shake a stick at—unless we get this legislation right and sort it out and throw the responsibility back on the husband and the wife.

If we were to say in this place when we come to have a vote, ‘Hands up all those who have gone through divorce?’ the general population might be amazed but would not be surprised, because one in three marriages end up in divorce, and that is a hell of a lot. This legislation is groundbreaking. It is an honest, serious attempt to get the problem resolved. When we put our report out, we upset the fathers, we upset the mothers, we upset the Family Court lawyers and we upset the Family Court. And the 10 members of the committee thought that we must have done something right—‘They are all upset’, which is wonderful.

We were overwhelmed with submissions—there were something like 1,700 submissions. We heard from all angles. The thing that really worried me was the involvement of lawyers. I do not particularly like lawyers—I must admit that quite honestly and frankly. They are a blight on our society. You only have to look at the tax laws to see how well they have organised our lives to make it so confusing that you have to rely on them. When it comes to family law, it is almost as bad.

There is a rush to go and see your lawyer and get an apprehended violence order. First in gets the house and is able to lock the other person out. There is this fixation with confrontation. I am happy that the recommendation of our bipartisan report was to send them packing. They are the last resort. The best interests of the children should be paramount. Sit down and work out a responsible parenting plan and do not have these stupid arguments, such as, ‘My religion is more important than your religion,’ ‘John has to go the local Catholic school rather than the local primary school,’ ‘Your parents cannot see him,’ and, ‘I’m going to go the lawyer and make sure I punish you.’

The sad thing about divorce is that two people who once committed themselves to vows in front of a whole bunch of their family and friends resort to tearing each other apart. The sad cover of this wonderful report, illustrated by one of the children who went through the trauma, tells it all. It tells it better than we in this place, who are supposed to be articulate, can tell it, because they have gone through it.

With this legislation, it is sad that we have to see amendments. It is sad that we have to focus on some issues. The issue that is usually focused on is that of violence. There are so many wonderful things in this legislation, and sadly we on this side of the fence are looking at the wrong part of it. We need to get the family relationship centres operational right across Australia—and not just parked in certain seats so there is an opportunity to win or retain them. They have to be where there is the greatest need. I know that in most cases they are, but I think that the people in my area, which has regional and rural towns, should have the same opportunity as people in the big CBDs. They are no different; their marriage break-up rates are exactly the same as those of the people living in the CBDs.

I know the people who work in these relationship centres and the wonderful work they do. Today I publicly pay tribute to them, because they do not have an easy job sorting out the mess, trying to impose some discipline and structure in the best interests of the children. Sure, there is violence—we read of it daily, where frustrated fathers kill themselves and their children or kill their former wives—but I think to focus solely on that is going about it the wrong way. We need to focus on the positive aspects in the best interests of the children. And the best interests of the children are to make sure that there is a responsible parenting plan put in place by the mother and father that includes the grandparents on both sides and also those in the extended family. Let us face it: with the complexity of modern-day life and often the difficulty of unavailability of child care, you rely on a whole heap of people in your extended families to look after your kids, take them to school, take them to sport and take them to swimming lessons. You have suddenly been offered an extra three hours at Coles: ‘Can you look after the kids for me?’

To exclude those people from this parenting plan is stupid. We need to include them. That is what is great about this legislation: ‘in the best interests of the children’ encompasses a huge range of people who were once excluded. As we wandered around Australia we would hear evidence of one of the grandparents making up absolutely outrageous claims, often of violence and sexual abuse, just to make sure their child had custody of the children. In many cases these were false. As I said, AVOs were like sausages. They came out in droves. This was fostered by the legal profession who could make a quick quid out of it—and shame on them. I am glad that we have put them at the end of the line.

I am disappointed, as most of the members of committee are, that we could not get the tribunal up. Perhaps in later legislation, once this has been bedded down and worked through for a couple of years, we might have the foresight and imagination to get the tribunal. The 10 of us, who came from wide-ranging fields of life, realised that a tribunal will work. It is something totally different, and there are some constitutional hassles and hang-ups, as in 1975 when we had the revolution and went from fault to no fault in divorce. I must admit I was one in 1974 that had to stand up in court, plead guilty and be publicly humiliated and shamed because I was ‘at fault’ in a divorce. We do not have that now, and I am glad we do not. But now, 30 years later, we are rectifying a problem.

The real hassle with this legislation is that from now on divorces are going to be part of this process. What are we going to do with all the cases, the backlog, the tens of thousands of families queueing up to be part of this new process? As I said, close to a million children, for a variety of reasons, are being denied equal access to the other parent and there are huge consequences of that. As I said at the outset, this is a bit like the RU486 debate: people are speaking from the heart. I reiterate that we on this side do not have all the wisdom and those on the other side do not have all the wisdom. For goodness sake, let us get together on this issue because it affects each and every one of us. As I said, many in this place are trying to rebuild their lives because they have gone through a divorce and the trauma of having to not see their kids. Daily in our electorate offices we are picking up the pieces, advising people, and we must get it right.

So let us not play politics with this: one Attorney-General versus one shadow Attorney-General; people on one side and people on the other. Let us focus on the best interests of one million young Australian people who are currently being impacted by this very complex issue and of goodness knows how many other tens or hundreds of thousands in the future. We have a responsibility in this place. We are a select 150 people. We are expected to do what is right, honourable and just. If we focus on ‘in the best interests of the children’—not our best political interests or point scoring—we will get it right.

See this speech in context