House debates
Thursday, 2 March 2006
Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005
Consideration in Detail
12:00 pm
Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source
The amendments are not agreed to. I will deal with them in the order that the member has dealt with them, which is not the numerical order. First, on the issue of fear and apprehension for wellbeing and safety, the exception that the member is proposing would be additional to the existing provisions that allow a matter to go directly to court in circumstances involving abuse or family violence or risk of abuse of a child or family violence if the matter was to be delayed. We consider that the existing exceptions are sufficiently broad to ensure the safety of vulnerable people. In this case, a person could claim they were scared of violence without a reasonable basis for it simply to avoid a dispute resolution process. The government amendments will allow a family dispute resolution practitioner to issue a certificate that dispute resolution not take place where the practitioner believes issues like possible coercion or a history of violence make it inappropriate.
On the six-weeks delay proposal, it is fine to say that these things ought to be benchmarked in that way, but the fact is that putting in place a mandatory provision of that sort would allow people to easily manipulate their situation in order to avoid dispute resolution. We do not want people attempting to avoid dispute resolution. A person could claim that there were no appointments available at times that suited them. They could insist on seeing one particular dispute resolution service although others were able to provide dispute resolution. That is the sort of manipulation that would be possible.
Finally, the reference to genuine effort was added to ensure that people take part in dispute resolution in a productive way; otherwise, one party could sit through the dispute resolution and not say a thing on the instruction of their lawyers in order to ensure they went through the process not in any meaningful way but simply to have a day in court. That is certainly not the way this system is going to work. People ought to be required to make a genuine effort.
Question negatived.
No comments