Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (33), (34), (35), (37), (42), (43), (44) and (45) together:

(33)  Schedule 1, item 13, page 18 (line 17) omit:

                ‘equal shared parental responsibility’, substitute ‘joint shared parental responsibilities’.

(34)  Schedule 1, item 13, page 18 (line 21) omit:

                 ‘equal shared parental responsibility’, substitute ‘joint shared parental responsibilities’.

(35)  Schedule 1, item 13, page 19 (line 5) omit:

                 ‘equal shared parental responsibility, substitute ‘joint shared parental responsibilities’.

(37)  Schedule 1, item 13, page 19 (lines 7-8)

(42)  Schedule 1, item 29, page 26 (lines 23-4), omit ‘equal shared parental responsibility’, substitute:

                 ‘joint shared parental responsibility’.

(43)  Schedule 1, item 30, page 26 (lines 27-8), omit

                 ‘equal shared parental responsibility’, substitute:

                 ‘joint shared parental responsibility’.

(44)  Schedule 1, item 31, page 27 (line 6) omit

                 ‘equal shared parental responsibility’, substitute:

                 ‘joint shared parental responsibility’.

(45)  Schedule 1, item 31, page 27 (line 24) omit

                 ‘equal shared parental responsibility’, substitute:

                 ‘joint shared parental responsibility’.

This range of amendments deals with the same change but is required in a number of different provisions in the bill—that is, to change the term ‘equal’ to ‘joint’ as originally proposed by the Attorney-General in his exposure draft of the bill. This is an issue that both the Attorney-General and I have addressed in our speeches to date of dealing with people’s expectations about what family law can deliver.

The Labor Party is very keen to promote shared parental responsibility. We think that it is good for families and for children if both the mothers and fathers of children are able to engage in an active and caring way with their children even after family breakdown. But we are concerned, when there has been so much debate about having a presumption of equal shared parenting time, that to use the term ‘equal’ rather than ‘joint’ when talking about shared parental responsibility sends an incorrect message to the community about what these changes to the law actually do. I think the use of the word ‘joint’ emphasises that decisions by parents about the future of the child need genuinely to be made together. They need to be discussed together, people need to consult, as other provisions of the bill require, and those decisions, where possible, should be able to be made together in the best interests of the child. By using the term ‘equal’, which I know is terminology that the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs recommended, I think we edge a step closer to implying that children can somehow have their interests divided by a calculator—that, when we are talking about where it is that children are going to go to school or what religion they will practice or what sort of shared family arrangements there are going to be for their ongoing care, we can just sit down and type something into a calculator and split the child in half equally for each parent.

That is quite an offensive idea. It is not what people in this House mean when they speak about shared parental responsibility. We all know that there are many circumstances where an exact and equal division of time or responsibility is not possible and is not necessarily desirable. I think it is very interesting that the people who advocate equal shared parenting time—which of course has been rejected as a presumption but introduced as an important matter that courts and others must consider when reaching parenting plans—and who would like the government to go further acknowledge that, in most family situations, there would not be an exact 50 per cent division of shared time with the child. Most people who have been through this process, even if their experiences with the current family law are undesirable ones—we know many people have had undesirable experiences—acknowledge that that sort of equal division may not be workable, practicable or in the best interests of the child and a whole range of other things.

I am not sure that the proposed change would have any different legal effect. We propose this amendment not because we believe it might have some different legal effect but because we think it sends a useful message that we are talking about encouraging parents to be able to make decisions together, that there be a joint and shared responsibility for the future of children and that it is not about, ‘You take your 50 per cent and I’ll take mine.’ I think our amendment is more consistent with the rest of the direction the government is taking than the provisions that are currently in the bill.

It is another one of those areas in which the Attorney-General and I agree. The Attorney has since changed his mind following the recommendations of the LACA committee. I respect that that is why he has changed his mind but, as he indicated on another amendment of ours where he has not accepted the view of the LACA committee, each of these amendments should be judged on its merits. We believe these amendments are meritorious and we hope the government will consider them as such.

See this speech in context