Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare and Early Childhood Learning) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and other measures) Bill 2011. This bill amends part VII of the Family Law Act 1975, dealing with children, to enable the courts and the family law system to respond more effectively to parenting cases involving violence or allegations of violence.

Family violence exists and it is a reality. Every practitioner who deals with separating couples needs to have an awareness of this issue. Does violence exist and, if so, how are the already complex circumstances of separation and alternative dispute resolution managed in light of it? In some circumstances where violence is present, mediation is just not an option. Clarity and consistency around the definition of family violence is critically important, not least because the recipients of public funds who work in this area must be able to demonstrate what they do and what they achieve. In the public discourse, violence can be characterised as someone else's fault—something a person is driven to by their partner, outside circumstances, ill health, stress or some other factor. Family violence is unacceptable and there is never an excuse for it. No-one in today's society should have to spell out why. Apart from the threat to safety, the mental and physical pain and anguish, and the sheer psychological damage violence does to the people who are on the receiving end—and in part to those who perpetrate it—front and centre of its negative effect is the message it gives to children, who, while they may not actually have their physical safety threatened, are too often severely affected.

Witnessing violence in an ongoing parental relationship teaches children that it is a valid transaction—one they may need at some stage to employ. It is no secret that violent patterns of behaviour are passed down through generations. Women and men fleeing violent relationships often say to me that the final reason they left a violent partner was the lesson they were unwittingly teaching their children that it is okay to do this and okay to have it done to you.

Society has come a long way since the days when family violence was never admitted to, never spoken of in polite company, and when women—and it was usually women—suffered in silence, simply getting up the next day to face the world as if nothing had happened. I worry that in some of our more rural areas, where help is not readily available, in small towns where everyone knows who you are, this is still happening. This is why the resources that go into Lifeline and telephone counselling are so important.

In my electorate of Farrer we have excellent agencies, people and programs to assist separating couples. I acknowledge the Family Relationship Centre in Wodonga, which looks after a wide area including Albury and surrounds. Family relationship centres were introduced by the Howard government and there are 67 across Australia. Their task is to support a shift away from the courts and into the community as the place to deal with family breakdown.

Since its conception in 2007, the Wodonga Family Relationship Centre has dealt with 1,367 cases—and of those, 635 have been identified has having family violence present. This centre is clearly highly significant, particularly because it enables early screening and assessment of cases and recommends the right kind of intervention, mediation or, sadly, in some cases, no mediation but referral to police or courts. The average time the centre spends with families is three months but for some families it but could be up to eight or nine months. The centre has achieved approximately 286 parenting plans and many families have been happy just to discuss their situation with a neutral person present.

The success of the family relationship centre I believe is its unique model that allows for families to determine their own arrangements. Where family violence is identified the centre is able to offer support and safe and comfortable conversations, and it can tailor its service delivery to respond to the needs of a family.

I also recognise the work of Upper Murray Family Care in Albury and Wodonga, which runs counselling programs and the children's contact service. I support the work of Betty's Place Women's Refuge which provides support, counselling and advocacy to women very much. I note, however, that there is nowhere to go for men who have been subject to family violence.

In Broken Hill I acknowledge the role of Catherine Haven Women's Refuge and the Family Support Service of Broken Hill and District as well as the family support and crisis workers in other organisations across my electorate, such as Centacare and Anglicare.

Intereach, based in Deniliquin, has early intervention as their key focus but unfortunately there are very limited counselling options. There is no specialised family violence counsellor in town. A family violence funded worker comes to visit from Albury-Wodonga, some 2½ hours away. Their role is predominantly that of court support worker. They do offer a family support program and have around 20 families they are assisting. Not all of these are victims of domestic violence. They suspect that the increase in cases being reported is to do with enhanced promotion of services available.

When people require more intensive, professional assistance it can be a very long wait. There are waiting lists of six-plus months at Echuca for an appointment with a psychologist. In regional and particularly remote areas such as the far west, Family Violence Prevention Legal Services find difficulty attracting staff because they are unable to offer legal practitioners the salaries they can earn in the city.

In looking at this particular bill, I do so with a strong view that our system of laws, no less than our system of community support, must respond first and foremost to the needs of the child. The bill proposes an amendment which requires the court, when determining what is in a child's best interests, to give greater weight to the primary consideration that protects the child from harm where there is inconsistency in applying the two primary considerations—the other being the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents. This amendment would appear to be superfluous as the act already gives effect to the principle of paramountcy of the best interests of the child. Are we therefore supposed to conclude that there are serious shortcomings with the existing system that need to be fixed up when there are not?

It is the best interests of the child that has led to the much misunderstood 'presumption of shared parenting', as it is often described, and the associated view that somehow each parent is entitled to 50 per cent care of their child. These concepts were never about parental entitlement; they merely recognised what I believe to be a self evident fact—that it is in the best interests of children to have a productive relationship with both parents. This means spending time with both parents, and that neither parent should stand in the way of that.

The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs report, Every picture tells a story, unanimously stated:

We are convinced that sharing responsibility is the best way to ensure as many children as possible grow up in a caring environment. To share all the important events in a child's life with both mum and dad, even when families are separated, would be an ideal outcome.

Of course, shared parenting is not always possible and family violence may well be a reason. Partners who commit violence deal themselves out of negotiations about shared parenting.

But it has to be said that there are vexatious claims about violence, generally made by women about men for a variety of reasons. We cannot escape this fact, and having spoken to people who work in children's contact services, I know of many examples. This does not for a moment diminish the tragedy of the cases that are real and I understand, too, that some partners may believe there to be a real threat of violence when a reasonable person would not conclude such a thing. I appreciate that different types of behaviour provoke different responses and reactions from those on the receiving end of them but we nevertheless must accept that claims about violence made for strategic rather than genuine reasons are a feature of the family law landscape today. This bill seeks to change the definition of violence and I have concerns about that change. It changes a reasonable person test to a subjective test. The existing test is broad; the proposed test is too broad and may well admit claims that, while appalling behaviour is not in the interests of children, it should nevertheless not be described as violence. I am not convinced of the merits of this amendment and I await the outcome of the Senate committee inquiry.

The bill also seeks to repeal the so-called 'friendly parent provision', which currently requires family courts to consider the willingness of one parent towards facilitating the other parent to have a meaningful relationship with their child. This provision has been criticised by some as discouraging parents' disclosures of family violence and child abuse for fear of being found to be 'unfriendly'. I do not agree that this provision needs to be repealed; its proper application is nothing to fear. Running active interference against the other parent should count against you and, if there is a valid reason for not cooperating, then it will not count against you. The failure of one parent to facilitate a relationship between a child and a separated parent is a factor that courts absolutely should uncover. There can be no reason for a parent's obstructive behaviour to be excluded from consideration.

The bill proposes to repeal the section which provides for mandatory costs orders where a party knowingly makes a false allegation or statement in the proceedings. It should be noted that the test put forward is a tough one: a mandatory costs order cannot arise from evidence that was given recklessly or without belief—in other words, it applies to knowingly false evidence. If a court were prepared to make such a finding, there is no reason why a costs order should not follow. We should not seek to disturb this state of affairs.

I have highlighted key areas where the opposition does not agree with the government on this bill. The Senate committee report is due on 23 June and will no doubt inform further deliberations in the other place. It must be stated that there are substantial areas where we are in substantial agreement with the government. These capture the seriousness of family violence and child abuse, the need to put children's interests first and the need for courts to take prompt and appropriate action in his area.

All members of this place recognise that family law is no place for politics, no place for grandstanding and no place for point scoring. The careful consideration of the matters raised by the Attorney-General, the shadow Attorney-General and members and senators is to be commended. Having said that, it is unfortunate that early intervention relationship services run by the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs have suffered a nine per cent cut in the budget and the family relationship centres have had a four per cent cut.

For those of us who have been through the pain of family breakdown, experienced the sheer no-win nature of it and watched helplessly at the damage done to the people we love, these are never easy issues. I believe governments should step into this arena with reluctance. But step in we must, primarily because this is a time when families stop talking to each other, stop listening to each other and often stop putting the needs of their children first. Family law legislation has to get the balance right, but governments also have a responsibility to make sure there is sufficient funding of programs that help separating couples. This help is invaluable. Too often in my rural and regional electorate I hear of waiting lists for counselling and mediation. When families are in crisis they often just cannot wait. We have a desperate shortage of children's counsellors, a specialised and incredibly important group of psychologists. Children must be able to express their feelings in a safe place in a safe way when their whole world is falling apart. A delay of even a fortnight, which may be acceptable when making appointments with other health professionals, is an unacceptable delay at this time.

I support the amendment to be moved by the member for Stirling and I await the outcome of the Senate inquiry.

See this speech in context