Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm happy to address the Attorney-General about appropriations for his portfolio. Attorney-General, I've always firmly believed that the first concern of this nation's Family Court should be the best interests of the child. I know some men's rights groups think otherwise, but I'll never understand why anybody would want a system that doesn't prioritise the interests of children when it comes to making potentially life-changing decisions about their parenting arrangements. That is why, in opposition, I introduced a private member's bill to remove the misleading and dangerous presumption of equal shared parental responsibility from the Family Law Act. This change to the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility in the Family Law Act was made in 2006, under the Howard government, by the then attorney-general Philip Ruddock.

The push to remove this dangerous amendment was part of Rosie Batty's and Women's Legal Services Australia's Safety First in Family Law campaign. This entailed five steps to create a family law system to keep women and children safe. It was launched in October 2019 and endorsed by more than 90 frontline organisations, including men's support organisations. Since Philip Ruddock's amendment—the equal-shared-parental-responsibility provisions—was first included in the Family Law Act, experts have been raising their concerns. Then shadow attorney-general Nicola Roxon, in her speech on the second reading, said:

… some victims of family violence may develop the false view that they cannot stop their abuser from having contact with their children. I am advised by some service providers in the sector that this is already happening, mostly involving women who, despite their fears and concerns, feel that new laws mean they will have to accept equal time.

Sadly, after Howard's misstep, the family law system was again used as a political football by the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments. Family law has been subject to more than two dozen inquiries over the last two decades. I've been on some of those. Consistent among the reports that arose from those inquiries is the fact that our family law justice system contains way too much overly complex and, at times, confusing legislation. Report after report has raised concerns about the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. I'm proud to be part of the Labor Party that has long been committed to improving our family law system, with improvements to make it safer, simpler to use and more accessible, and to a justice system that delivers just and fair outcomes for families. I know that family law is one of the most difficult areas of our justice system. All too often, love turns to hate and logic turns to irrational beliefs that are usually wrong. Most people sort it out themselves, as you know, but there are some occasions when the state must step in to offer guidance. One of the reasons for this problem has been because the presumption has been misunderstood since day one. I look forward to hearing from the Attorney-General as to how the current changes will clarify the confusing framework in the Family Law Act for making decisions about parenting arrangements. Too often it has led to parents believing they have a right to equal time with their children after separation—fifty-fifty, seven days on and seven days off et cetera.

The misleading presumption of equal shared parental responsibility gave rise to many misogynist groups and others using this misunderstanding deliberately, to further advance their misogyny and argue that abusive parents must have access to their children, irrespective of the harm that might flow after. This can allow abusers to continue to harass their former partners through repeated Family Court action. I'm keen to hear the Attorney-General's views on any evidence that the courts were biased against men—and I'm sure that the extremist group that the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Cash, met with, prior to the coalition voting down these family law changes, would be interested in hearing his reply.

We're all aware of the monumental change made by the merger of the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court—a surprise merger that wasn't recommended. It was a merger that generated a high level of anxiety across the country, especially amongst family law practitioners.

I conclude by asking the Attorney-General to provide an update on the work being done by the Albanese government to address the issues presented by the merger of the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court. When will Dr Frankenstein's creation be disassembled?

See this speech in context