Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

We do not really want any unnecessary by-elections! There is no more difficult area of the law than family law because it involves not just legalistic concepts but also families, it involves breakdowns in relationships and it also involves ongoing relationships, particularly the ongoing relationship that separating parents have with their children.

It does not matter from which political perspective we approach this issue. All of us believe that it is important that separating parents ought to, as much as possible, have an ongoing relationship with their children. The children are, of course, Australia’s future and parents who are able to cooperate, even though their own personal relationship has broken down, are clearly performing a service not just for the country but, in particular, for their children. The bringing up of children is unfinished business and even though a relationship may have terminated between two adults, as much as possible, they ought to cooperate in bringing the children up to be responsible citizens.

Thus the framework of the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005 seeks to, as much as possible, provide an environment where separating couples are encouraged to continue to work together to bring up their children. The honourable member for Calare in his contribution seemed to be critical of the committee which I chaired, the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, suggesting that in some way we had breached the terms of reference given to us by the Attorney-General to look into the exposure draft of the bill which is now before the House in its current form.

The committee, in fact, very closely observed the terms of reference and we suggested that the court ought to look, as a starting point, at equal time. We were not suggesting that it was a rebuttable presumption; all we were saying was that we were concerned that so often the words ‘substantial’ or ‘significant’, which were the words used by the member for Calare, could, in the minds of courts, be a very small portion of time. We wanted to create the reality and to point out to the courts that there was an expectation that they would, as a starting point, consider equal time. This does not mean that they are compelled to award equal time and in very many circumstances equal time would not be appropriate. But it is important that the courts take that matter into consideration. If we are able to bring about an environment where loving parents—even though they are not able to be together and even though their own relationship has collapsed—are able to spend more time with their children then the children will be very much better off.

When the committee looked at the exposure draft I was very pleased at the bipartisan manner in which members of the committee worked together. The report was not unanimous. There was one dissenter and that was the honourable member for Gellibrand. The other members of the Labor Party joined the majority and supported the recommendations. There was an expression of concern by Labor members in relation to some aspects of family relationship centres but the core elements of the report and the bill were supported by all members. In fact, even the member for Gellibrand supported most of the recommendations of the committee. I think she pointed that out to the House in her contribution.

This bill, as has already been mentioned, perhaps makes the most major changes to family law since the Family Law Act came in in 1975. The Family Law Act 1975 brought in no-fault divorce and brought in a whole new set of concepts. It took quite some time, I am told, for the legal profession and the community generally to adjust. The examination of the exposure draft of the bill through mid-2005 was perhaps one of the most emotional investigations conducted by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for some time. We received a huge number of submissions and most of them—in fact, all of them really—were speaking from the heart. We had fathers who felt that they had received a rough deal through the courts; we had mothers who were concerned about domestic violence. The committee endeavoured to bring down a balanced report. I have to say that we were particularly pleased when the government overwhelmingly accepted the recommendations of the standing committee.

The government and the committee are both desperately aware of the need to limit the harm done to children during separation. The member for Calare and other honourable members have referred to the interests of the children being paramount and that is the basic concept of the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005. Whatever is actually included in the bill is, quite naturally, subject to the fact that the interests of the children must be paramount. I do not think any reasonable person could deny that the interests of children should be paramount, but we were endeavouring to encourage the courts to perhaps take a fairer approach to the interests of children and parents. I repeat that we believe that it really is important that parents are able to have a parenting plan and to cooperate on unfinished business—that, of course, is the upbringing of the children of a marriage or relationship.

The bill aims as much as possible to move separation out of the courts and to instead encourage mediation and discussion to find solutions. This is less costly than the court system and aims to reduce the instances of additional financial pressures on what is already a difficult and very high stress situation.

The honourable member for Calare pointed out—I think, quite fairly—that there were untoward delays in the Family Court. I believe under the new Chief Justice of the Family Court those delays are probably fewer than they were. Certainly, the Chief Justice is well aware of the not entirely satisfactory record of timeliness of the Family Court and no doubt she is addressing that matter. I recall with some concern how Family Court judges were sent to Timor at one stage to help them with their family law situation. Timor has lots of problems, but I would not have thought that it should have been a top priority for the Family Court of Australia to send judges into the jurisdiction of that newly-free country. We have also heard of instances where judges have not given a judgment and couples have suffered as a result of that lack of timeliness.

The bill aims to offer some protection to those who are most vulnerable in times of family break-up—they, of course, are the children. If we are able to reduce the psychological damage that often accompanies a break-up, then we are contributing to the development of well-balanced adult members of our society. The draft bill that was examined last year aimed to support and promote shared parenting and to encourage people to reach agreement about the parenting of children after separation. That is the core value at the heart of the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005. It also sought to continue to encourage the involvement of both parents. Mention has been made by other honourable members of violence, and the bill also recognises the need to protect children from family violence and abuse and aims to ensure that the court process is less traumatic.

As I said earlier, the committee received a large number of submissions, even after the closing date. We tried to take into account as many as we could. It is important to recognise that this is an outstanding bill, and I commend the Attorney-General, who has just come into the chamber, for the way in which he has brought so many of the recommendations of the committee into the bill we are currently considering.

The family unit remains the most important building block of society; it is the foundation on which a society is built. A shaky foundation of crumbling families equates to an equally shaky society. There are numerous anecdotes that indicate that if parents are able to work together after separation then the trauma of a separation does not impact as grievously on children. The provisions of the bill are supported by the introduction of 65 family relationships centres. I thank the member for Gellibrand for her support of the government’s initiative on these family relationships centres. I think they are geographically well scattered. I hope that there will be sufficient access to them for people around the country. No doubt these family relationships centres will assist many couples who have separated. The family relationships centres are included in a $400 million investment by the Australian government over a four-year period that is directed at improving the stability of families and giving support and advice to those couples who believe they have exhausted all options and must separate.

I understand that there has been some arrangement with the whips that one ought to limit one’s contribution in this debate to 10 minutes. I see that I am just about out of time. I mentioned earlier that the Attorney-General accepted most of the recommendations of the committee. In fact, I gather he accepted some 50 of the 59 recommendations. This bill aims to encourage separating parents to sit down and rationally discuss and plan the future care of their children. I think that the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill is a very important step forward. As a member of this parliament, I feel an enormous sense of satisfaction that this bill, when enacted, will vastly improve the situation of separating families, will vastly improve outcomes for children of separated families and will make a very positive contribution to the welfare and wellbeing of Australian society. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context