Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Hansard source

I can think of no more significant thing that we can do in this place and, more importantly, what each of us as Australians can do outside of this place—whether we are members of parliament or whatever—than work to keep families together. That is, I would argue, the most significant goal that we could have in our society and in our community. Over centuries, our community has built its stability on having stable families, and we should do whatever we can in this place to strengthen families. Government from time to time may think that it can do things that take away from families, but I know one thing—and Ronald Reagan said it—and that is that government can never replace family. I am sure members of the House would agree with that.

The matters that we are dealing with here with this bill, the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011, are difficult and emotional and cause all sorts of harms. There are never any easy solutions and outcomes but, while we wrestle around these measures in this place, I would hope that all of us here are trying to get a better outcome for families and for children in particular.

My colleague, the father of the House, the member for Berowra, was the architect of the 2006 changes to the Family Law Act, in his capacity as Attorney-General. He knows better than most the challenges it poses and he certainly was not wrong when he observed that this is a very delicate issue. The fact is that the law deals with the sobering realities of broken relationships. It attempts to traverse an emotional minefield where the stakes are high. The issue is fuelled by strong feelings on all sides. There are high levels of conflict and certainly no easy solutions. Seeking objectivity can be very difficult where the bond between a parent and their child is subject to such scrutiny. This is why the coalition is committed to ensuring that, at the heart of every dispute, the focus remains on the safety and wellbeing of the child.

As people attempt to overcome their hurt and confusion and to work through their issues with a partner, a wife or a husband, there is a risk that, in the heat of the moment, a child can become a pawn—a mechanism used to hurt, to punish and to seek revenge. We have seen this played out all too sadly all too recently. This is not always a conscious or deliberately malicious act, but the outcome is the same. Often parents are acting with what they think are the right intentions, but the law must ensure the needs of their child do not become confused or supersede their own.

It is important that children grow up knowing both parents. I believe a child should have the right to both parents—a mother and a father—to as great an extent as is possible and practical. But this must never come at the expense of the child's safety. No-one can claim any perfect solution because there is not one—simple as that. There are no two cases the same, so there is an overriding need for flexibility. To test this law we need to look at worst case scenarios, to contemplate the darkest, ugliest part of the human condition. It is not comfortable. The issues are emotionally fraught and can be confronting. But to safeguard every child in this nation we are required to do just that in order to ensure the right checks and balances are in place to protect children, even when their parents cannot. The Family Law Act was enacted to protect the defenceless at the height of their vulnerability, when society's fabric has been irrevocably torn. Each child has a right to be safe and secure and that is the underlying premise of the act. To suggest any other ulterior motive is simply wrong. There may be room for improvement. The act may not always produce the outcomes we seek, but I am concerned that these amendments may only serve to create more confusion when we ought to be seeking clarity. However, I am open to the discussion and to listening to the points that are raised.

Provided a child is safe, they should be able to grow up knowing both their mother and their father and enjoying a fulfilling relationship with each. The act as it stands upholds this principle. We should seek to encourage negotiation, not litigation, wherever we can. The coalition's approach has been, wherever possible, to get these matters out of the courts. The Howard government funded Family Relationship Centres across the nation and they were in high demand. I pay tribute to those who work in the centre at Caringbah. There was a very clear and deliberate focus on empowering people to work through their issues collaboratively and constructively amongst themselves. A report by the Australian Institute of Family Studies in late 2009 found that overall the clients of post-separation services looked upon those of the relationship centres favourably. Over 70 per cent of clients who had used the family relationship centres and dispute resolution mechanisms said the service was fair. One in two said the service gave them the help they needed. Similarly, the professionals working within these services believe their capacity to assist clients, to help parents work through their issues together, was high. But tellingly they flagged the frustrations over long waiting times, resourcing and recruitment issues.

Obviously not every case can be resolved in this way, but where these issues can be worked through, where a child can continue to grow in their relationship with both parents, surely that is preferable. It begs the question: why then is the government cutting funding to initiatives that have a clear and proven track record? Not only that, as the member for Berowra noted, the government is in fact boosting funding for legal aid in family disputes. To pull funding from initiatives that are making a real difference is very disappointing. In pursuing these amendments the government is in very real danger of driving these problems back through the courts as the preferred option and undoing what progress we have made since 2006.

The proposed legislation seeks to broaden definitions, widen the range of claims that can be made and extend the grounds upon which people can dispute and bicker. The member for Blair raised a valid point when he said:

In fact family violence, as people know, occurs in many ways. That includes not just physical assault but dominating, controlling behaviours; stalking; friendship isolation; familial isolation; emotional manipulation; financial abuse; harassment; and cultural isolation.

We as a society need to be aware of this and ever-vigilant. The member for Blair went on to observe that:

We need to protect children from these types of activities. We need to protect spouses as well, if we can.

On that point, I do not believe there is any disagreement. The Family Law Act has never been about ignoring violence. Domestic violence is appalling. In my own electorate in the Sutherland Shire there were 501 reported incidents of assault relating to domestic violence last year alone in our local government area. That is 501 cases too many. Sadly, it will not be 501 cases that can now be avoided. These things weigh heavily on us all when we think about these matters—well more than one a day. Yes, the law must offer protection, but it should also offer protection from allegation and false accusation. Our legal system is a strong pillar of our democracy. We must trust that, should any threat of violence come into play, the Family Court would naturally take this into account and act in the best interests of the child.

I believe the coalition got it largely right in 2006 when the Family Law Act was amended to include a presumption that parents equally share parental responsibility for their children. If there is evidence of violence, that presumption should not and will not apply. We cannot allow claims by either parent to be coloured by dissatisfaction or rage at a former partner or situation. The consequences of severing all contact between a child and a parent are significant and long-reaching. I agree with the member for Blair that this must only be a last resort, which is why the coalition will continue to fight the removal of the friendly parent provision requiring family courts to consider how willing a parent is to facilitate a positive relationship between the other parent and their child.

Currently the courts are bound by a provision to make costs orders against a parent found to have knowingly made a false allegation or statement in the proceedings. By removing mandatory costs orders as a disincentive, you risk opening a Pandora's box of unsubstantiated and uncorroborated claims. The report by the Australian Institute of Family Studies found that more than two-thirds of those surveyed did not believe that the prospect of an adverse costs order had discouraged allegations of violence or child abuse that were genuinely held and likely to be true. That is not to say there are not occasions where this has weighed upon the minds of parents. There are unfortunately cases which, for whatever reasons, slip through the cracks.

I have written to the Attorney-General, my neighbour across the river, on several occasions to raise these matters with him. I have always been pleased to receive a reply. I think that reflects his interest in these matters. I have made representations on behalf of my constituents in the shire on this very issue. A grandmother wrote to me expressing her concerns about the experiences a number of young mothers from the shire had had with the Family Court, including her own daughter. These cases involved allegations of abuse by spouses and the custody arrangements of their children. There were, to say the least, very difficult circumstances. My constituent wrote, and I think this is well worth noting in the context of this debate: 'Mothers are, by nature, nurturers and children need to be protected from harm. It takes a lot of courage for a mother to leave an abuser and to try to keep herself and her children safe.' She observed that it had been her experience that the legal system empowers the abuser to continue the abuse through the court process and that the mother's and children's best interests are not being validated. My constituent spoke of the family law court making judgments favouring abusive men in shared parenting arrangements and of evidence dismissed against the perpetrators of violence.

I raise that simply to raise the concerns of a constituent and to put it in the mix of the debate. Admittedly no two cases are the same and certainly you do not change a law based on one set of circumstances. So, equally, I raise the case of a young man in my own electorate who has not missed one of his support payments, loves his kids deeply and is not the subject of any allegations of improper conduct, nor would he be I believe. He has not seen his daughter for two years. As a father of two daughters, I could not think of anything worse than not being able to see your daughters. He has custody arrangements that give him access to his daughter and he has not seen his daughter for two years. He is frustrated that the orders that he has are not being enforced, which is a complaint I hear regularly from constituents. I know it is not an easy matter, but when a father cannot see his daughters for two years and he has a legal right to see those daughters and that is not occurring, surely we must be looking at things that may assist in these cases. That father advocated to me a points system that would reward parents for meeting their financial obligations and penalise those who continually breached their custody arrangements or who denied a former partner access visits. For what it is worth, I think these things should be considered for breaches of custody orders where one partner has denied another partner their legal access to their children—whether by wilful obstruction or noncompliance, or by seeking not to support the undertaking of orders. Clearly, we need to look at a system that will encourage compliance to ensure that children grow up knowing both of their parents wherever possible.

Another constituent wrote to me observing: 'The safety of a child should be put before unsupervised time spent with an abusive parent. A child can have a meaningful relationship with both parents, but if there are real issues of risk it must be undergoing supervision at final orders. Supervised access by a perpetrator of family violence would remove the child from exposure to destructive behaviours and the courts would not be placing a child back into a potentially unsafe situation at final orders.' She made the case that all officers, practitioners and advisers in the family law system should undergo mandatory training in the effects of family violence and abuse. This training, she argues, 'would be a valuable tool in recognising the tactics used to manipulate evaluators and judges or to intimidate the victim. Without domestic violence training of those serving the family law system, despite their years of experience, abusers may be judged time after time in the same way, which puts children at risk.' These are all valid considerations.

There are things we could be doing better when it comes to family law. I have no doubt that is the case. It is like the ever-receding finish line, but it is one that we must continue to strive for and urged towards. I welcome discussion of this bill. We in this House are united in agreement about the need to protect and safeguard children, regardless of where we sit. No-one in this place would seek to suppress discussions that strive to better protect those most in need of our help or to ensure that our families, wherever possible, can be held together. In the sad case where that is no longer possible, then we should seek to preserve as much of those relationships as possible.

I do not believe that the amendments proposed by the government, in their current form, are the full answer at this point. Winding back the Ruddock reforms, measures that are proven to have made a difference, is very dangerous. It is important to note, as a word of caution, that opportunities to reach common ground and make constructive progress should not disintegrate into the slinging of mud and hurling of insults. This debate should not be a chance to take swipes at one other—the stakes are too high. This act has very real repercussions for the way our children live and how they grow up. I look forward to continuing this debate.

See this speech in context