John Alexander (Bennelong, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The breakdown in a relationship too often leads to a phase of adult war. Logic and fairness is overridden by emotional issues. Inevitably, the child becomes the collateral damage—the victim of the conflict. Laws that have correctly been put in place to protect those at risk—in particular, to protect women from violence and to protect children from any number of transgressions—have now empowered parents in conflict to use all too often with the aid of aggressive legal practitioners the laws that should be there to protect those at risk as strategic attack weapons to most often put the father in an impossible position to defend.

It is understandable that when these protective measures were first implemented the initial flow of genuine cases and distressing stories led those working in the Family Court to become predisposed to prejudging any male coming before them. This syndrome of using well-intentioned laws to disadvantage the father in a parental war has taken some time to be realised. The wisdom of Solomon is so easily recalled in such events, when a parent employing such tactics is choosing to cut the child in half and is therefore not the real and caring parent. Rarely does a week go by in which there is not a significant event involving a parent feeling so disempowered to effect their desires to co-parent after the breakdown of a marriage that a breaking point is reached, sometimes with the most unimaginably tragic consequences. One, in absolute desperation, climbed the Sydney Harbour Bridge and brought the city to a standstill. The only triumph was his voice finally being heard.

The unfortunate reality in these dramatic episodes is that they are the tip of the iceberg. These are pleas from those feeling that they have no voice as a result of the system. They are certainly not faultless, but such acts of desperation can only be a reminder of a process that is felt by many to be unfair or, perhaps, even unjust. Our laws and the interpretation of those laws must protect those who are vulnerable. There also should be provisions that severely punish with costs both the professionals and the partners who seek to corrupt the process by inappropriately using such laws for their commercial advantage or to inflict hurt on their former partner by depriving contact with their child. The unintended consequences when the focus is to hurt the former partner is that the children become the collateral damage and a different form of family violence is perpetrated on the children by those who may have the purest of intention. Emotional turmoil destroys their judgment and their first obligation as a parent.

I have some serious concerns with the broadening of the definition of violence to effectively include any act of disagreement or anger in any relationship that involves children. All of us in this place and throughout Australia will know that raising children can sometimes be as challenging as it is rewarding. The pressure that it puts on relationships is evidenced by the ever-increasing rates of divorce and separation. Coupled with this expansion of the definition and a reduction in the court's ability to punish incorrect allegations equals a misuse of laws put in place to protect the vulnerable. Well-intentioned laws are taken advantage of for personal gain. We should certainly be mindful of what is actually happening through the empowerment of those who will act contrary to the best interests of the child to fight their personal wars. Every effort should be made to guard against this from occurring.

Of course, this is by no means occurring on every occasion. The men who do perpetrate violence on defenceless women and children are the most cowardly members of our society. However, it is dangerous to implement a wide-ranging law to treat all men as perpetrators of violence and not recognise that some men would never raise a hand and could themselves be victims of emotional violence. Such a law will not facilitate the desired result for the protection of the vulnerable and fair access to family structures that our society is based upon.

This bill is a step in the right direction, and I commend the coalition amendments to the House.

See this speech in context